Debates of Feb. 5th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Canada-United States Relations

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster.

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

Madam Speaker, this is a rather fundamental debate that we are having today. Unfortunately the motion does not address the issues that we as Canadian parliamentarians must address; what it does is put in very stark relief the two ends of this House of Commons.

Sitting at one end of the House and crossing over the aisle sits the Liberal-Conservative coalition, which is essentially a group of flamboyant and radical free traders. These members read in a textbook that free trade is good, so they do not make any sort of intervention, attempt any sort of managed trade, or implement any policies that would lead to job development or industrial strategies in this country. That is what we have seen over the last 20 years.

Many Canadians know that this approach has led to the collapse of our manufacturing industry, to the collapse of many of our strategic industries and, as I will point out later on, to an actual fall in real income for most Canadians.

One would think these radical free traders would look to see if the economic theories that they have learned in a textbook actually work, but no, there is no evaluation. There is no real, consistent understanding of the impact these policies have had, and that is unfortunate.

The Prime Minister never actually ran a business and never met a payroll. He learned his economics from textbooks, and it shows. The Conservative government has been appallingly shortsighted in putting in place industrial strategies for the automobile sector, for the steel sector, for our shipbuilding sector, for our softwood lumber sector, and for a whole range of vital and strategic industries. We have seen the loss of real jobs, and that is due in part to the fact that we have not had a trade strategy that makes any sense.

At the other end of the House, stretching across both aisles now as a result of the new members we earned in the last election, sits the New Democratic Party. We are strong fair traders. We believe that trade needs to generate additional jobs. We also believe that the people in the country have a role to play in ensuring that industrial strategies are put into place for the preservation and enhancement of our automobile sector, our steel industry, our softwood lumber industry, and our shipbuilding industry.

We in the New Democratic Party believe that government, working with the public sector and the private sector in mixed economic development, has a role to ensure there is a rise in real income for most Canadians.

Perhaps nothing throws the difference between fair traders and radical free traders into more relief than the motion we see before us today.

I would like to discuss certain aspects of the NDP approach to fair trade before continuing with my speech on specific considerations.

The NDP believes in fair trade that promotes human rights such as women's and union's rights. We believe that international free trade must be adjusted to increase the capacity of individuals to negotiate collective agreements, tackle gender equality issues and reinforce human rights, not diminish them. In the case of the Canada-Colombia agreement, this government's approach—and that of the previous government—has diminished human rights rather than advancing them.

We also believe in respect for institutions that promote fair trade, such as the Canadian Wheat Board, as well as supply management. Our farmers and communities across Canada depend on these institutions to keep the local economy going. In our opinion, these fair trade organizations must be protected; however, the other parties, the Liberal and Conservative parties, do not believe in them.

We also believe in agreements that respect the environment by relying on sustainable development. That is the main difference between the Conservative-Liberal coalition and the New Democratic Party. Free trade agreements have been used to contravene environmental regulations. Many companies have found ways to get around all the environmental regulations that most Canadians want.

We believe that our fair trade agreements must serve to strengthen a policy and an approach based on sustainable development and respect for the environment. We also believe in fair agreements that respect economic diversity and also, for example, the existence of a third sector. We often speak of a public and private sector. However, there is also a cooperative sector, where communities can put together their economic resources in order to develop. I could give you many examples where the cooperative sector has strengthened local or regional economies.

Thus, fair trade must be used to strengthen this economic diversity. In a sense, we believe in economic diversity. The Conservatives and the Liberals, who are working together, have similar views on trade and believe in only one approach: the private sector and big business. The right regulations can stimulate the economy. Otherwise we end up with a monoculture. By putting all our eggs in one basket we are not strengthening community ties and local economies.

We have here the issue of this particular motion. There is that difference between Liberals and Conservatives, who are perfectly happy selling out Canadian jobs, and the NDP that believes firmly in reinforcing our economy, reinforcing our vital industries like the automotive sector, the softwood lumber sector, shipbuilding and I can go on and on, but there is a very clear difference in our approaches.

We have this motion today that has three elements and I would like to touch on each one of them. Unfortunately, some of them are factually wrong. It is too bad, but it is a fairly innocuous motion. We will have to decide in the next few days how we take all this together. The first element states:

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,--

In this sense the Liberal motion changes history unfortunately. I think it is referring to Smoot-Hawley back in the early 1930s. The Liberals are radical free traders. These theoretical folks just love to look at their textbooks and say, “This theory will have to work”, without ever checking on the consequences of their actions. They say that Smoot-Hawley was the cause of the Great Depression. That is simply not true. Smoot-Hawley came as a result of the Great Depression, which had already started. Essentially, the Great Depression, in part, came from a lack of regulation. Does that sound familiar? Of course it does.

I would like to cite one of our international colleagues, the Australian Labor Party, which is part of the same international entity that the NDP is part of, and the new Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, who said, “The time has come, off the back of the current crisis, to proclaim that the great neo-liberal experiment of the past 30 years has failed, that the emperor has no clothes”.

Prime Minister Rudd is referring to the fact that a lack of regulation, again, has put us back in the same kind of economic circumstances that we saw in the 1930s. Smoot-Hawley was not the cause. Smoot-Hawley was a right wing Republican attempt to deal with the crisis that began with no regulations, no protections in place for the public across North America.

Curiously, this particular motion does not refer to what the antidote was for the Great Depression, which was not only a series of regulations to protect the public but, what the NDP has always been calling for, the great economic stimulus that came out of the New Deal. That was missing from the Republican approach. There was no economic stimulus. There was no investment. What Franklin Delano Roosevelt did with the New Deal was provide that economic stimulus that the NDP has been pushing now for months, convinced our Liberal partners to come on the majority coalition, and then they sold us out and went with the Conservatives.

In any event, we will see if the Conservatives can be trusted to bring in that economic stimulus in a fair and effective way. Many of us do not believe that they can be trusted. Certainly, they have broken their word before. However, the point I am making is that it was economic stimulus in the New Deal that actually started to push the United States out of the Great Depression.

Therefore, the first clause of the motion is factually wrong. It is, I guess, in keeping with the proud Liberal tradition, but aside from that factual error perhaps pretty innocuous.

Second, it states:

--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,--

That is something certainly that we could support. That is something that we have been pushing for. However, let me preface my remarks in this regard with what is actually happening in the United States and in Canada.

Since NAFTA was implemented in 1989, and we have the figures right here, there has been a hollowing out of Canada. Essentially, for most Canadians they have lost in real income. We have seen a loss of real income that is the equivalent for the lowest 20% of the Canadian population of about a month and a half of income. In real terms, they have lost a month and a half of income since NAFTA was implemented. For the lower middle class they have lost about two weeks of income.

Each and every Canadian family in that income class, and we are talking about more than six million Canadians in those families, has lost about two weeks of income in real terms. The middle class has lost about a week of income in real terms for each and every year since NAFTA was implemented.

This is not solely a result of NAFTA. It is also because of the foolish economic policies or lack of economic policies that were put in by the Liberals. Like the Conservatives, they do not seem to change much as they bounce across the floor, but fundamentally we can say that the bottom line is that they have failed over the past 20 years. When most Canadian families are earning less in real terms than they were 20 years ago, one would think that one member of the Conservative-Liberal Party would say, “Well gee, maybe we should change our economic approach”.

What the NDP is saying, with a growing number of Canadians, is that since Liberals and Conservatives are not changing their economic approaches, we are looking to change the government. That is why we are seeing more and more New Democrats in this House of Commons as we go through each election. We understand that this is not sustainable. Telling the middle class to accept less every year and telling the poorest Canadians to accept much less every year is simply not a sustainable economic policy.

I will just conclude my remarks on the Canadian income categories by saying that the wealthiest 20%, which is what these economic policies have been intended to do, not a flood upwards, the wealthiest 20% now take most Canadian income. The Canadian income pie is less and less equal, more and more skewed to corporate lawyers and to corporate CEOs. That is why the NDP is saying that we need a much more balanced approach, a much more mature approach, in keeping with what we are seeing around the world.

We are saying in this motion that we want to intervene with the United States administration. The important thing to note is that when we are talking to President Obama and talking to Americans, we have to understand that they are going through exactly the same thing. Two right wing, radical free traders, Kenneth Sheve and Matthew Slaughter, who has the oxymoronic title of being a former economic policy adviser to George Bush, said in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs:

[Income] inequality in the United States is greater today than at any time since the 1920s. Less than four percent of workers were in educational groups that enjoyed increases in mean real money earnings from 2000 to 2005; mean real money earnings rose for workers with doctorates and professional graduate degrees--

--corporate lawyers and CEOs--

--and fell for all others.

That is nearly 97% of Americans who saw their real income go down.

These explanations around the issue of so-called protectionism miss a basic point. U.S. policy is becoming more protectionist because the American public is becoming more protectionist, and this shift in attitude is a result of stagnant and falling incomes.

It is no secret why President Obama was elected on a platform of renegotiating NAFTA, rebuilding it on a fair trade model. It is no secret why we have seen this in the House of Representatives. I was on the phone yesterday talking to friends of mine in the U.S. Congress. They are talking about these issues. The senate rejected senator McCain's ridiculous amendment, certainly not an amendment that was in keeping with the way most American senators felt. It was rejected 65 to 31. It is because Americans are increasingly concerned about the same income fall that we have seen.

If we are intervening with the United States administration, we have to start on that basis. We have to start on the basis that these free trade agreements and all the economic right wing policies that have gone with them have not been good for American workers and they have not been good for Canadian workers. That is the fundamental problem. I would hope that at least one of our colleagues from the Conservative or Liberal Party would actually start to look at the real facts, the bottom line, not the textbook theory.

We all know the textbook theory. I can spout the textbook theory as well as anyone in this House, but the real, practical results are a fall in real income for Canadians, a fall in real income for Americans, and that is why we are having to deal with these issues, where more and more workers are saying, “We have to protect jobs here at home”.

How do we communicate with the United States administration and Congress? We can do it on a win-win basis.

I will cite the most recent figures available. November 2008, for Canadian trade with U.S. from iron and steel mills, targeted, as we know, in the house of representatives bill and targeted, as well, in the senate bill, they will go into conference but one can assume that iron and steel will get through that conference and we will have to contend with this and deal with the administration, the American senate and congress, in a meaningful way.

In November 2008, we exported $349 million worth of iron and steel to the U.S. and imported $401 million from the United States. In other words, the U.S. has a trade deficit with us in iron and steel. That essentially means that we buy more iron and steel from it than it buys from us. In November 2008, that is, essentially, what those figures mean. What that means is that we have an opportunity for a win-win. We have an opportunity to go to American senators and members of congress and say that we would like to exempt them from a “buy Canada” clause so we can use American iron and steel and we would like them to do the same with the “buy America” clause.

There is just one tiny wrinkle in that. Over the last 20 years of Liberal inaction and Conservative inaction, and their lack of industrial strategies, neither government chose at any time to put in place a “buy Canada” clause. That is something the NDP has been pushing for, which is why there are more New Democrats in this House as we go through each election and why we overflow from one side to the other side of this House. Canadians want to know why the Liberals did not bring this in and why the Conservatives are not bringing in a 'buy Canada' clause. They will simply say that it must be illegal or that it is not in keeping with their textbook theory. However, the reality is that this would provide us with the leverage we need to sit down with the American administration and have a win-win negotiation by exempting our iron and steel in the same way that we would exempt theirs.

I come to the third part of the motion which states, “urge the United States to respect its international agreements”. I will cite a couple of articles, first, by the Canadian director of the United Steelworkers, Ken Neumann, and second, by the United Steelworkers president, Leo Gerard, a very proud Canadian.

Ken Neumann stated:

The US has had laws requiring the use of domestically-produced goods for government contracts since the 1933 Buy American Act. These laws are consistent with international trade obligations.

Linda Diebel said the same thing in the Toronto Star.

Buy Canada is legal and buy America is legal for provincial and municipal entities as it is for state and municipal entities. Instead, we are sending millions of taxpayer dollars to buy overseas what we could be building here at home. Many people have cited the Navistar plant, where we are spending $274 million for military contracts in Texas when we, as taxpayers, provided $65 million to the Navistar plant in Chatham, Ontario.

This approach does not make sense, a purely theoretical approach that we will not have buy Canada because it would interfere with our theoretical approach on free trade. It is legal. It would create more jobs in Canada and that is why the NDP is pressing the government and its Liberal colleagues to put in place a buy Canada policy and save Canadian jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, we just heard from the hon. member that President Obama is wrong to recognize the protectionist risk of “buy America” provisions in the stimulus bill and that Senator McCain was wrong to try to remove the “buy America” protectionist clause from the bill. We also heard from the NDP that we would be better off bringing in similar measures in Canada and that we should be supporting the American buy America program, which does discriminate against Canadian-made goods, but we should also do our own and work together to more deeply integrate the Canada-U.S. economies, which is interesting coming from the NDP.

Beyond that, does the member not recognize the risk around the world of countries retaliating against Canada and the U.S. if we both were to engage in that kind of globophobic, socialist, Luddite protectionist measure that every other social democratic party in the world, except Canada's New Democratic Party, has rejected? Does he not realize that instead of it being a U.S. Smoot-Hawley, this would be a Canada-U.S. Smoot-Hawley that would provoke exactly the same kind of economic devastation and economic downturn globally, particularly deleterious to the Canadian and, then, the U.S. economies?

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

Madam Speaker, is that all he has, the same kind of Conservative theoretical rhetoric? I expected to have a real debate and all he has is that it will be an utter calamity if Canada does what is legal under trade agreements.

I am sorry to have to announce this for the member but he should have been following this. The Senate just adopted the language on iron and steel provisions, the buy American act, and reiterated that it is essentially within trade agreements. The member should know this. My goodness, he is the trade critic for the Liberal Party and he should know this stuff. This is pretty fundamental. Conservatives should know this too but they are trade illiterates. They simply do not understand.

The buy Malaysian, the buy Korean and the buy European clauses are all legal clauses and yet they do not bring them in. Is it because they are illiterate, uninformed or just do not understand trade? Is it because they are asleep? I have no idea, but time after time we are told it is legal, and time after time Liberals and Conservatives say no, that if we do that the whole world will explode. No, it will not but more Canadians will have jobs, more Canadians will be able to contribute to their local economy and more Canadians will be off employment insurance or welfare and be able to contribute to Canada the way they want to.

If the Conservatives and Liberals understood fair trade and understood that buy Canada is legal, more Canadians would be prosperous. It is a shame they do not understand.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting to hear the rant from the hon. member.

Speaking of understanding, I understand from his speech that he quoted that middle income Canadians have lost 10% of real income “for each and every year” since NAFTA was implemented. As near as I can tell, that would result in a 100% negative real income for middle income Canadians. I would like to understand. He did not document where he got those numbers and I would like to hear where he got the numbers.

Second, it is curious that the hon. member is promoting a buy Canada solution to everything. By extension, I would imagine that he would be even more in favour of a buy B.C. provision or perhaps a buy Burnaby provision in terms of trade. Maybe he would like to go back to the days when families made their own clothes, grew their own food and built their own homes. Perhaps that would be the solution to the problems we are facing right now.

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

Madam Speaker, I will deal with the serious question first and then the silly question afterward.

The numbers are from the Library of Parliament's StatsCan report from 1989-2005. I will use the figures another way. What I was saying was that if one loses a week's income, it has a cumulative effect. If one loses a week over 20 years, less one week for each of those 20 years, one loses more income cumulatively. I was trying to explain it in a very simple way so that Conservatives and Liberals could understand.

Another way of explaining it is that, in real terms, the loss of real income growth for the lowest quintile has been 14%, for the second quintile it has been 12% and for the third quintile it has been 6%. That is an average loss for all 6 million Canadians within that income category. That is horrendous.

As for the sillier question, I will say one more time for the Liberals and Conservatives in this House that buy Canada provisions are legal. Virtually every other industrialized country in the world has them, including the United States which will be investing an economic stimulus through a completely legal process. The question that I have to put back to every Liberal and Conservative in this House is: Why are they refusing to protect Canadian jobs with a strategy that is legal under NAFTA and the WTO?

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I personally loved the speech just given by my hon. colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster. I thought most of his ideas were incredibly intelligent, particularly, the fact that the depression in the 1930s was due to a lack of government regulation of economic levers and that today's crisis is due to exactly the same thing. I also agree that the buy Canada act is legal and that it has never been implemented by either the Liberals or the Conservatives, but it should have been. I completely agree with him on that matter.

However, these are topics for another discussion, not today's, when we must respond to Mr. Obama, who is coming to tell us about his plan. We will meet him very soon.

I would remind my colleague of the various aspects of Mr. Obama's plan— and the hon. member for Sherbrooke listed them earlier—that are subject to litigation. As we all know, when it comes to trade litigation, even when the United States thinks it is right, it accepts the litigation and drags it out for years, until the party suing them dies or is practically driven from the market.

Mr. Parizeau used to say—and he repeated it a few times—that when a mouse sleeps with an elephant, the elephant must always know where the mouse is. That is important for the mouse.

When the member's party leader meets with Mr. Obama, will he be able to tell him exactly where the mouse is here?

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster has about a minute and a half.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his question. I am trying to explain to the Liberals and Conservatives that Mr. Obama got a mandate from the American people not just to preserve U.S. jobs but to increase real incomes, which have fallen considerably over the last 20 years and especially over the last five. Even the most partisan admirers of George W. Bush will admit that.

We should say, therefore, that we understand Americans’ concerns but have one of our own as well. Rather than expanding on far-fetched theories of unadulterated free trade that the Conservatives and Liberals like to talk about, we need to have very real, practical negotiations about iron and steel and propose a trade agreement that would be managed by both parties. In this way, both Canadians and Americans would benefit. It would help us save jobs and improve the efficiency of our iron and steel industry.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, for introducing this motion. I have listened with great interest to the discussion and debate.

I will have some comments to make about the speech of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but I want to indicate my strong support for a simple proposition, which I do not believe is because I am the captive of some strange ideology that has been ascribed to members of this party.

My support for the resolution comes from an intensely practical sense. Right now we are facing a challenge as a country because our greatest and closest trading partner is introducing an $850 billion to $900 billion stimulus package, which has provisions attached to it that will discriminate against Canadian companies.

For my friends in the New Democratic Party, if they are not prepared to defend that, then in my view they are not prepared to defend the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian business. They are missing the point and they are missing the boat. The New Democratic Party is the captive of an ideology.

The British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Norwegian social democratic party, I say with great respect, is a movement of which I know something.

The neo-isolationist view that is taken by the current federal New Democratic Party is removing it from every intelligent debate about trade, globalization, economic change and economic progress that has taken place over the last 30 years.

In listening to the speech from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, I must confess I was taken aback. If anything could be described as a lecture in some abstract political philosophy and political theory, it is the speech we just heard from him.

We face a practical challenge as a country. Our greatest trading partner is about to engage in an act of protectionism. We have an obligation as Canadians and we have an obligation as members of Parliament to intervene forcefully on behalf of Canadian workers and Canadian businesses in the face of that protectionist spirit.

The dilemma facing the United Steelworkers, an organization with which I am extremely familiar and with which I have had close ties over many years, of which I am extremely proud, is it has decided to take a position that says it can defend the interest of American workers, as it sees it, by excluding products from other countries and it can do it without side-swiping Canada. We will see whether that happens.

I am not interested in advancing the interests of anyone other than the interests of Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian economic interests. If I think friends of mine who I have worked with over the years are making a mistake, I have no hesitation in saying they are making a mistake.

I am certainly not here to argue their case. I am not here to say I am arguing their case as if it is in the general interests of the people of Canada because it is not. Workers in Sault Ste. Marie will be laid off as a result of this measure being introduced in the United States. Workers in Hamilton will be laid off as a result of this measure. Workers at IPSCO steel in Regina will be laid off as a result of this measure.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster can engage in all the political philosophy and all the pirouetting he wants, but he cannot ignore the fact that the position being taken today by the New Democratic Party of Canada is contrary to the interests of Canadian working people and of Canadian businesses.

This notion that somehow what has happened to the Canadian economy and what has happened to the standard of living in North America is a product solely of the North American Free Trade Agreement is preposterous. Those members should open up their eyes, look beyond the horizon, see the transformation of India and China and see what the whole process of globalization has meant. Has it produced hardship for many Canadians? Yes, of course it has. Has it resulted in the loss of jobs in the country? Yes, of course it has. We cannot look at trade agreements alone and say that it is those trade agreements which are the cause of what has taken place in the country. It is a silly proposition.

I repeat this point. The social democratic parties in virtually every advanced industrial country have recognized that the best way to produce wealth is through markets. This is not the product of ideology; this is the product of experience.

Do we need governments? Of course we need governments. Do we need governments to intervene? Of course we do. Governments make up somewhere between 30%,45% and 48% of the GDP of economies across the OECD countries. We can see where we have been in the mix, but we are all mixed economies. However, at the basis of that mixed economy has to be strong markets. Are markets getting bigger? Yes. Are they becoming coordinated? Yes. Are they coming together? Yes. Is the world globalizing? Yes. The sooner the New Democratic Party recognizes that fact, the better off it will be and, frankly, the better off the level of debate and discourse in the House will be.

We have to come to terms with the fact that we are members of NAFTA. I fought NAFTA. I did not like NAFTA. Why? Because I believed at the time that the Conservative government was mistaken in thinking that somehow, if we signed that agreement, we would be able to avoid American protectionism.

The argument that was made by the Conservative Party at the time, by the prime minister of the day, was that if we signed the agreement, we would somehow come under an umbrella and we would not be subject to the kind of side-swiping which we have seen.

I spent 12 years working with the private sector and for much of that time, I was involved in the softwood lumber dispute. My family appreciated the fact that I was so involved, because it was a long and arduous negotiation and discussion.

The American Congress is not deeply attached to the notion of free trade between Canada and the United States. It likes to say it is, but every time we have a competitive advantage, every time we have an advantage which gives us access to markets in the United States, which is greater than the Americans would like to see, it responds.

The free trade agreement did not and has not protected us against that. It has not had the effect of protecting us against American protectionism. We have to simply accept that fact and say that there is a level of integration that has taken place under NAFTA, there are issues that we still have, but we have to deal with the world as we find it.

I also find it interesting that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster says that any kind of buy Canada provision that we would want to put in would be legal. That would depend on what the provision was. I am not ideologically opposed to a sensible buy Canada provision if I think it will match what other countries are doing, it is something we have to do and it is in the framework of our legal structure and of our international obligations. However, we are members of WTO. We are a trading country. Our co-ops depend on trade. Our co-ops depend on access to international trade.

One of the most ludicrous comments the member made was to suggest that somehow the members of the Liberal Party were opposed to the co-operative movement. Tell that to my friend, the former minister of agriculture, who has done more to build up co-ops, supply management, intervention and the third sector in Canada. We do not need to take any lessons from the New Democratic Party in how we build up the third sector in our country. The fact remains, it has to be done in conformity with the law. It has to be done in conformity with our international obligations and with the fact that we are part of a big world. That world is good for our prosperity, it is good for Canadians and, frankly, there is no other way than for us to be engaged in this world in a positive and constructive way.

That is why, in my conversations with American congressmen and with American senators, I say time and again that it is not that we understand what they are doing and that they should go ahead and do it because it is good for them and somehow we will cope with it all. That is a ridiculous message for a Canadian politicians to be delivering to our friends in the United States. The message I have been delivering is that their concern has to be, not simply with the short-term prosperity that they think they are buying with this measure, with what this will do to the whole pattern of world trade and to the pattern of world investment.

We are in the middle of a very difficult financial crisis, not only in Canada, not only in the United States, but around the world.

When the leaders of the G20 met, Social Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, representing a variety of political parties and political traditions, what did they all agree on? One of the premises that they all agreed on was that we would not play beggar thy neighbour. We would not try to advance our own short-term interests at the expense of our neighbours. We would not try to bring in a measure that might look as if it were helping workers in Indiana, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania or Florida. In fact, it would not have that great beneficial effect, but it would have a hardening effect on the sense of understanding, on the sense of reciprocity and on expanding commerce and expanding trade. That has to be a critical feature of our coming out of this crisis into a greater world of prosperity.

My colleague from Kings—Hants has spoken very effectively about what we need to do together as a Parliament to make this change happen. He has spoken very effectively about the need for us to intervene. He has spoken very effectively about the need for us to improve relationships. He has spoken very effectively about how some of the positions taken by the Conservatives in the past have not particularly helped with respect to our developing ties and understanding with members on both sides of the aisle in the United States. It will require us in Canada to up our game and to improve how we are engaged and how we relate to our friends in the United States.

I particularly want to emphasize the importance of this resolution at this moment in our history and in the discussions that are going on in the United States. Let there be no doubt in the United States where Canada stands. Let there be no doubt of the sense in the House as to our common interests.

I was very interested in what the hon. member for Sherbrooke had to say. He made some critical comments about how important trade is not only to Quebec but to all of Canada. This is not just a Quebec issue or an Ontario issue or a British Columbia issue. All Canadians are affected, and I would even say, the whole world.

We have a shared interest as members of Parliament in insisting that the rising protectionism in the United States does not help really us achieve the joint prosperity we all want and does not help to create more open, prosperous markets. What we want is to build a world together that respects the creative power of markets.

We adhere to the principles of social partnership and social justice and believe that the moment of decision has come for this House. Now is the time for us to say with one voice that this is in the interests of all Canadians, and frankly, in the interests of all our American friends as well.

We have to appeal not only to our sense of fairness to our friends in the United States, not only to their sense of what their international obligations are under the law, but we also have to appeal to their common sense and common interest. It is not in the interests of the United States to adopt measures that would limit the trade, the commerce and the exchange which needs to exist between our two countries.

As my friend from Kings—Hants has said, a full 40% of the trade that takes place between Canada and the United States takes place within companies. There is no such thing as a Canadian car or an American car. The parts from Ohio move to Ontario. Cars are being assembled in Ontario and the other parts from Ohio are being added. This is a fully integrated industry. It is true as well for steel. It is true on so many dimensions and at so many levels.

If the Americans pass this measure, will we have to respond in some way? Of course we will. Should we sit back and say we are not going to take it? Of course we will have to respond effectively.

Let no one think for a moment that we are creating these autarchic economic models in our head, where the picture of the economy in our heads seems to be one where some bright boffin in Ottawa will manage the trade between one country and another and say that one country will produce over here and the other will produce over there. The world does not work that way. It is not the way the world should work. It is not the way the world will work.

The sooner we come to grips with these two things we will be better off: first, what is happening in the world economy and how we have to understand it more deeply and respond more effectively and collectively to what we are facing; and second, that the moment of decision is coming in the American Congress and it is our responsibility to respond effectively and aggressively to those protectionist steps being taken in the Congress.

The sooner we come to grips with these two simple facts, not political philosophy, not some abstract economic ideology, of the way things are right now, the better off we will all be.

[Dean Del Mastro, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Madam Speaker, the member made a number of points in his speech, one of which involved his opposition to NAFTA, an opposition stemming from concerns about softwood lumber. Of course he would know that softwood lumber had a special exemption under NAFTA, which is why it needed a separate deal. He might want to check his notes on that point.

I do agree with the member on a lot of the points he made, and they are are important. I will refer back to words in an old country song, “I was country when country wasn't cool”. This party was actually friends with the Americans when the Liberal Party thought being friends with the Americans was not cool, when someone like Carolyn Parrish was calling them idiots.

I remember, for example, the member for Selkirk—Interlake going with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and putting forward the interests of Canadian beef farmers. I remember the member for Yellowhead and the member for Edmonton—Leduc meeting with speaker Nancy Pelosi when she became leader in the Democratic Senate and effectively putting forward our case, saying that we are here and we are partners.

Americans do not always change the rules when it works for Canada. When Canada was building up manufacturing jobs and increasing our footprint in the auto industry, we were selling those cars to the United States. That was NAFTA working.

I agree with the member. We need open trade. We need to make sure protectionist measures not only do not creep into the U.S. system, but also do not creep into any of the major G20 economies. That is why we signed on. Canada is a trading nation, and we benefit from that. I encourage the member and the Liberal Party to keep their current stance. It is the right one. The Liberals opposed free trade, but they are on the right side now. Let them keep it up.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was country before country was cool. I can certainly understand why he would say that, but I do not think there is any point in any one of us competing to say who is best friends with whom. We are friends with the American people because of our long-standing relationship. We are friends and neighbours, and that relationship is there. We have differences of opinion with them and we have differences of policy with them from time to time. I am talking about how we effectively have to advance Canadian interests, and advance them in an effective and sometimes quite aggressive fashion.

There was no special exemption for softwood lumber. This is one of the great myths that has been perpetrated over the years. There has never been an exemption for softwood lumber. There never was. The issues on softwood lumber were an object lesson for me.

When we have a competitive advantage in the United States, 50% of the U.S. Senate represents states with less than 20% of the population. In those areas of resources and agriculture, as we are now finding in steel and in manufactured products, we have a fight on our hands with respect to American protectionism, and it will only grow. The sooner the members of the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc can all come to terms with what that means and with the need to take strong action, the better off we will be.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the member's speech. It is interesting to note that he seems to be completing his drive to the right, because the Conservatives loved his speech, so he may be moving to another party.

There were a lot of factual inaccuracies. Among many other things is the fact that we did not actually say whether we were going to support or oppose this somewhat inaccurate but relatively innocuous motion. There are a number of other inaccuracies I will not go into, but he attacked a whole variety of things.

He attacked managed trade, which I suppose means that he opposed the auto pact. He attacks buy Canada, so very clearly he agrees with his Conservative counterparts that we should not take any measures to protect the Canadian industry. He also attacked the steelworkers. He said that he disagrees with the steelworkers.

Leo Gerard and Ken Neumann, two notable steelworker leaders, have said to the Americans and to Canadians that we need “...to discuss a coordinated approach for the North American industry to strengthen its ability to create and preserve these good jobs in both countries”.

Why is the member attacking steelworkers when they are the ones who are affected and the ones who have said that the NDP approach on a coordinated strategy is right?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not know whether he is supporting it or opposing it. It sounded to me as though he was opposing it. If now he is saying he is not, we will wait for them to fall off the fence one way or the other. We will just have to see what they do. I have no idea what they are going to do. It was not clear from his speech, obviously.

Second, I never attacked buy Canada. What I said was that whatever we do has to be compatible with our international obligations. He asked if it was legal or illegal. I said if it is legal, we will do it, and if it is not legal, we will not do it. It is as simple as that. I did not attack anything.

Finally, I never, ever, in my comments attacked the steelworkers. I did not do that. Anybody listening would know that I did not do that. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Algoma. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Hamilton. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Regina.

He is the one who is refusing to recognize that we are at a moment when the American Congress is about to take steps that are going to be harmful to Canadian steelworkers, and we do not have time for the political theory that it would be nice if we could work out some new trade pact on steel. We are not going to be able to do that in five minutes, but Congress is going to be passing this measure in five minutes, and that is why I am opposing this measure.

I plead with my partners in the New Democratic Party, my friends in the New Democratic Party, because they are still my friends. I will say to them very clearly that I hope they will stand up with their fellow parliamentarians. I hope they will stand up for Canadian workers and say no to American protectionism, because it is bad for America and it is certainly bad for Canada.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, I do not often find myself nodding along with the hon. member when he is speaking. Usually I find myself with a bit of a contrasting opinion. In this case I do agree with most of what the hon. member said.

I noted that he spent a good deal of his time strongly criticizing the NDP position and particularly the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but I would note that until very recently the hon. member was the strongest advocate within his party for a coalition agreement with the NDP that probably would have seen the leader of the NDP as the industry minister, and might very well have seen the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster as the minister for international trade.

I am wondering if the hon. member could square that circle for us.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, the coalition agreement negotiated between the former leader of my party and the leader of the New Democratic Party did not involve moving away from NAFTA, did not involve moving away from our commitments on international trade, and did not involve any steps at all that would have taken us from a sound and positive position for Canada.

I have no problems in saying that what was there was there, and that what has happened since has happened. All I am saying to the hon. member is that Canada is at a moment when we need to come together as a Parliament. In my view, the vote next week should be a unanimous vote. It would be a great thing for this House to be sending the clearest message possible to the United States with respect to our position.

If I mistook the 20 minutes of diatribe from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster as a sign that he was in favour of the motion proposed by my colleague from Kings—Hants, and if somehow I failed to understand the sophistication of his argument and the intricacy of his conclusion, then I accept entirely the criticism. I would be delighted if the New Democratic Party were to support this motion, but it was hard to tell if that was the case. It was a little difficult to tell whether that was really where he was coming from.

It is important for us to come together as Canadians and as parliamentarians and send a very clear message to our friends and colleagues in the United States.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I think he certainly understands the issue and understands the threat we all face. I agree with him that a unanimous decision by this House would be excellent.

However, there was one point. I do not think there is any point in going back and looking at who said what, when they said it, which parties support the Americans, or which ones do not. As a fact, any government in Canada has to have a close relationship with its American partners regardless of its political colour.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a very personal note, my father was a minister in the Canadian embassy in the 1950s. I was Richard Nixon's newspaper boy. What could be a greater sign of cooperation than for me as a young nine- or ten-year-old to be delivering papers to Richard Nixon?

I can hear the conspiracy theories coming from the other side--

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech I will go a little further on the question that I just raised, because I think it is only common sense. It behooves everyone in this place to have a reasonable and respectful relationship with our trading partners around the world, regardless of who those trading partners are.

Certainly we are making a serious mistake if anyone in this place thinks that we do not have to have a rules-based trading relationship with the United States of America, our closest neighbour, our greatest ally and our largest trading partner. It is absolutely essential to our ongoing livelihood here in Canada. It is in the best interests of our workers, it is in the best interests of our businesses and it is in the best interests of all Canadians. The money generated from those economies helps to pay for everything that Canadians receive.

There has been some attempt, I believe a playful one, at trying to drive a wedge between the government, the American administration and the new President. That is sheer folly and sheer foolishness, because regardless of the political party in power in Canada and regardless of the political party or person in power in the United States, it is absolutely incumbent upon both administrations to have a good, solid, respectful relationship, because both countries benefit. That is not rocket science in any way, shape or form.

As you know, Madam Speaker, there has been a discussion in the House on this issue today. There has been some interesting debate, and the economic stimulus package is making its way through the U.S. congressional legislative process. We have been watching with great interest and trying to have as much influence as possible on the decisions that the Congress in the United States will make.

We need to put the measures that are moving through the Congress in perspective. Governments around the world have all found themselves in the same position. We are moving into turbulent economic times, and these are very recent changes. These changes occurred in the last quarter, and we expect they will deepen in this quarter.

When the G20 leaders met in Washington in November of last year, there was a wide range of views regarding both the nature and the seriousness of the situation. Certainly the situation had not progressed to the degree that it has today. In spite of these differences, however, the G20 leaders were able to agree to provide timely stimulus to domestic demand while also maintaining long-run fiscal sustainability.

In Canada we acted on our own commitment. On January 27 we tabled our economic action plan, a plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this synchronized global recession. The action plan will stimulate the economy by building infrastructure, reducing taxes, freezing EI rates, stimulating housing construction, improving access to financing and strengthening Canada's financial system by helping Canadians through training programs.

Just as our economic action plan is meant to provide stimulus in Canada, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is predominantly meant to stimulate the U.S. economy. The cost of that bill is now approaching $900 billion. It includes extensive tax cuts, assistance to state and local authorities for education investment, new health care investments, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure and energy investments.

However, there is another reality, the reality of the integrated North American economy of today. That stimulus package will also benefit the neighbours across the border, Mexico and Canada, and as long as everyone is contributing to the solution, we should be welcome within that stimulus package.

That is a clear message to the United States. Given the magnitude of the challenges we all face, no individual country is likely able to save itself without help from its trading partners. No individual country in the world is an island. Now is not the time to allow protectionism to rear its head. It will drive the economy downward; it will be a downward spiral not seen in the global economy since the 1930s.

We are extremely concerned that the broadening of the buy American provisions in the U.S. stimulus package will lead to other countries following similar protectionist policies and will create that downward spiral and fuel a greater economic crisis. That is why our government was making our concerns known to the American administration, legislators and other stakeholders long before the opposition was on this file.

One-third of all cross-border trade between Canada and the United States takes place with companies with a presence on both sides of the border, and two-thirds is within established supply chains. If either government were to introduce new barriers or preferences now, it would increase costs, cause delay and disrupt the way that businesses have organized themselves on the continent, thereby resulting in decreased North American competitiveness. I do not think any of us on the North American continent can afford that at the present time.

The Minister of International Trade recently met with U.S. trade officials and strongly indicated Canada's concerns about increased U.S. protectionism and the pressures and possible broadening of buy American provisions in the proposed stimulus package. He said, “We know from history that protectionist legislation winds up hurting one’s own economy and invariably hurting the economies around it”. In a follow-up letter to the acting U.S. trade representative, he wrote, “Canada believes that elements of ARRA now under consideration are protectionist in nature and contrary to the very goals of economic recovery that this bill is intended to address”.

That is the very start of what happened and how this issue has grown. It is important for all Canadians to know that we have taken our message to the American government. We have used all of the assets at our disposal, including one-on-one discussions with American legislators, congressmen and senators. We have certainly been in broad and thorough diplomatic discussions with the United States. We know how serious this issue will become if we are not able to nip it in the bud.

Certainly, we are not alone in our concerns and we are not alone in the lobby. America's other trading partners have expressed concerns. There is domestic opposition as well from companies as diverse as Caterpillar, which has a tremendous national market in the United States but also is an exporting company. There are many national business organizations and corporations that have now taken another look at the bill and said that it looks good on paper, because protectionism always looks good on paper, but what are the results of it? The results are that America would lose jobs, would lose opportunity and would lose income.

Canada has tremendous political capital with our closest friend and ally, the United States. We are optimistic that the United States will not proceed with a bill that would be damaging to international trade. After all, the greatest danger to global economic stability is that other countries would retaliate with protectionist measures of their own.

Last night's vote by the U.S. Senate to ensure that the U.S. stimulus package meets all international trade obligations is an encouraging sign. It is the first crack and an encouraging sign that our combined efforts are making progress.

At the G20 in November our Prime Minister pushed for progress on four initiatives to address the causes of the global financial crisis, initiatives that were ultimately endorsed by the G20 leaders. We pressed for action to address the crisis, commitments to strengthen domestic financial regimes, an agreement to conduct transparent international assessments of national financial systems, and a commitment to resist protectionism and maintain open markets.

We owe it to all of our trading partners to resist protectionism and maintain an open marketplace.

Meanwhile, Canadians and Americans share the largest and most comprehensive economic partnership in the world. We are one another's largest customers and largest suppliers. We are joined at the hip. We are dovetailed together. Anyone in this place or any other place who thinks that we are not dependent upon the American economy and the American economy is not dependent on us is making a very serious lapse in judgment.

Although our precise policies may differ because we are separate countries, our objectives as nations are similar. We seek prosperity, security and a good life for all of our citizens. The prosperity of our neighbours is inextricably tied to our own. Our two economies are so integrated that we must address this downturn together.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has called upon the government to intervene forthwith and persistently with the United States administration and Congress in light of what he characterizes as growing protectionism in the United States.

As this House knows, the government has responded quickly and effectively to specific protectionist elements which appeared in the stimulus package being prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It certainly does not stop there.

Canadians will be gratified to learn that a committed and gifted team of civil servants and Canadian diplomatic representatives have been working around the clock on this file engaging their counterparts on the other side of the border, but also working with their contacts in industry, trade and academia.

American newspapers, talk shows and radio phone-ins have been filled to the brim with debate on this issue, and yes, Canada can take plenty of credit for broadening the public discourse in America. Last night our friends in the Pearson Building received a note from our advocacy team in Miami. I will read a few lines of it.

“On February 4, Miami head of mission, Marcy Grossman, addressed the 100-plus members and guests of the board of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the leading business organization in this town with over 2,500 members. While the event had been arranged for Miami's head of mission to present the highlights of our newly available study of the Canada-Florida economic relationship, she used the occasion instead to deliver the Canadian message on buy American. Our timing was unusually felicitous because the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce board also considered today its advocacy priorities for the U.S. federal and state authorities in the next few weeks. In addition, the members of the board's international advocacy group were already considering what the chamber wants to say on this stimulus legislation to the Florida representatives in the U.S. Congress. The result was an immediate invitation for us to provide our information to the key people today, so they can consider it in their approach to Congress on the stimulus package. We have already sent them a package containing the basic talking points, Ambassador Wilson's letter to the Senate leadership, and the letters from the CME, the Canadian American Business Council, and the U.S. chamber and industry associations”.

This morning the The Miami Herald published an op-ed piece by the respected Latin American columnist, Andres Oppenheimer, urging the U.S. Congress to kill the bill's buy American provisions. In it he observed that the exact details of the bill are far less important than the message it sends to the rest of the world. The column quotes Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson and ultimately concludes:

If it gives U.S. trade partners an excuse to pass their own ''Buy national'' laws, U.S. exports will plummet even more and more U.S. jobs will be lost than this provision would help save. Now, please make sure that “Buy America” doesn't turn into “Bye America.”

This debate has come full circle certainly in the United States. We have made great headway in the House of Commons. There are more of us in agreement on this issue than there are in disagreement.

Our interventions and our interlocutors across the U.S. are being heard loud and clear. We have like-minded stakeholders in business, in industry and in academia. We have a situation where for the first time in many years, more than 100 major U.S. corporations have signed a common letter to the U.S. Senate leaders warning them about expanding protectionist measures, and their comments ring loud and clear in Canada as well as in the United States.

There are lots of people weighing in on this debate. One U.S. economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics has concluded that buy American provisions in the bill will cost more jobs than it will create. Most of us are in agreement with that. Earlier this week President Obama spoke out about the need to avoid sending a protectionist message when trying to stimulate the economy and about the need to make sure that the provisions in the legislation will not trigger a trade war. Again, I think the Americans have come full circle on this.

Quite frankly, as the Minister of International Trade said last night, we are not out of the woods yet. The decision is yet to be made, so it is no time at all to give up on a full court press. It is no time to slacken the pressure that we are exerting on our American friends and colleagues. In many different arenas, in academia, in industry, in business and diplomatically, we have pursued this with great zeal on behalf of the citizens of Canada.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for this timely motion. It is an important debate. It is a debate that needed to be had. It has allowed all of us in the House to clarify our position vis-à-vis whether we are going to move in a protectionist direction, join the downward spiral of nations that would destroy the economy of Canada and potentially of North America, or if we are going to stick to our formula that has worked for more than the past decade of rules-based trading that is fair and equitable to all of the players, that allows everyone in every economy to join with their allies, whether they be across the American border, the Mexican border, the Colombian border, the Costa Rican border or the Peruvian border.

The world is moving toward more free trade, not more protectionism. To turn our backs on that at the present time would be a serious mistake for our nation. It would be a worse mistake for our citizens, because we would let them down and be directly responsible for a greater loss of jobs than we are seeing in this downturn.

[Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal, Vaughan, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to start by thanking my hon. colleague for his remarks.

The opposition message is very clear. The Conservative Prime Minister missed the mark on his first attempt with the new American government. The opposition wants, through this motion, to hold the government responsible for having neglected our relations with our most important partner, the United States. In addition, just as the Conservatives neglected Canada when they should have been focusing on the economy, they failed to participate actively in decision-making with our trading partners.

Behind all the statistics on international trade lie relationships. We do not have much influence over the United States now because the Conservative government has not maintained a good relationship with it.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Why did the government act this way?

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am sure there was a question there.

I think the hon. member was trying to convince himself, or maybe even convince others, that somehow or another our government does not have a close relationship with the U.S., which of course is utter tripe and nonsense.

I said earlier, in response to the other Liberal member who was speaking, that regardless of political stripe, it is only responsible for a Canadian prime minister, whether Liberal or Conservative makes not an iota of difference, to have a mature, respectful relationship with our American counterpart. That is not rocket science.

We expect to have a very friendly and ongoing, and beneficial relationship with the present administration. If it was a different administration we would expect to have the same relationship with it. Political stripe really makes no difference at all.

There has been no missing the mark or dropping the ball here. This is something new that has occurred. Most people in the world hold great promise and great hope for President Obama. This is his first real test as a president. He has to be very vigilant to make sure the protectionist forces do not overtake the Congress in the U.S. because there is no gain in there for his administration or for his citizens.

We must look at the positive issues here. Canada went into this economic downturn because of decisions we made in the last couple of years in a very powerful position. We paid down $67 billion in debt in the last two years. That put us on a different footing than any other country in the OECD. We have the strongest banking system in the G20. As a matter of fact, we have the strongest banking system in the G7.

Canada is in a very enviable position in this economic downturn. We were the last to enter it and we expect to be the first ones out of it. We are not going to get out of it, period, unless we continue to have a frank, open and mature relationship with our American neighbour and trading partner.

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

Madam Speaker, I am quite concerned, having listened to the parliamentary secretary quite attentively, because his comments showed the lack of understanding of the government in intervening with the Obama administration.

Yesterday, the U.S. senate defeated the amendment that was brought forward by the Republicans 65 to 31. It was a landslide. The buy American provisions will be in the bill going through the senate. It is already in the bill that has gone through the House of Representatives.

The parliamentary secretary continued to refer to rules-based trading. Linda Diebel requested in the Toronto Star that the international trade minister actually read the trade pacts. She said, “He might discover the North American Free Trade Agreement...allows an exemption for procurement contracts to allow only American iron and steel, a provision contained in last week's $819 billion stimulus package”.

My question is very simple. Does the government and the parliamentary secretary understand that buy American is legal under NAFTA and legal under the WTO? Speaking to the Americans as if what they are doing is illegal, when it is very clearly legal, means we cannot communicate our message effectively. That is why we failed.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure of the question. I am not sure if the member is supporting the procurement policies in the United States and saying those are a good thing, or if he is saying that we somehow should still be working against them. It is unclear because it is very clear with us.

There are many provisions of buy American that are legal within U.S. domestic law, but there are also all kinds of provisions that are not legal under NAFTA and not legal under the WTO. We have to somehow level the debate here in the chamber. Hon. members simply cannot get up in the House and mislead Canadians, and mislead the Chamber and be in error on this issue. This issue is far too important.

What we are talking about here is rules-based trading. We have always stood for rules-based trading and we will continue to stand for rules-based trading. It is a benefit to both Canada and the United States. The protectionist measures that are being talked about in the U.S. are extremely dangerous, not just to the U.S. but to the entire global economy.

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

Madam Speaker, it is clear that the intention of this motion is to ensure that we are sending a consistent message to the Americans, that the buy American protectionist approach, and protectionism in general, is bad for the U.S. economy, bad for the Canadian economy, and bad for the global economy.

I wonder if the hon. member is as concerned as I am with the message coming from the New Democrats today in support of the protectionist measures that we as Canadians stand to lose so much from. Does he agree with me that in fact the New Democrats today, in their message in support of the protectionist measures in the U.S., are actually imperiling Canadian jobs?