Debates of Feb. 5th, 2009

Opposition Motion--Canada-United States Relations

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Calgary Centre for the great job that he does as a member of our Alberta caucus. He is a great Albertan and a great parliamentarian who has been here a long time. He is also a very astute businessman who knows the value of relationships.

The previous president, George Bush, broke the longstanding tradition of visiting Canada first, which is what most presidents do for their first official foreign visit, and decided not to come to Canada but instead chose to go to Mexico. Now that the relationship between Canada and the U.S. seems to be a bit better, the newly elected, freshly minted President Obama has chosen Canada and reinstated that tradition. I wonder if he could comment on that.

Given the fact that my colleague is a very astute businessman and knows the value of relationships, I wonder if he could elaborate on just how important our relationship with the United States is to Alberta for our agriculture sector, for our energy sector, and for our manufacturing sector.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the intricate relationship between our economic markets is something that we have recognized perhaps more in the past 20 years than we have throughout the history of both countries. Obviously, the trade between western Canada, Alberta in particular, with the United States has been the engine of growth for the country for the past 20 years and we hope it will continue. I am pleased with the relationship that is developing with the new administration. I am delighted that President Obama has chosen Canada as his first foreign visit and a return to a tradition that our two countries have shared.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Ajax—Pickering.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to this important motion before the House today. While the spectre of protectionism in the United States has been lessened in view of the development last night in the U.S. Senate, this issue remains in more general ways a matter of concern.

The buy American provisions of the American stimulus package reflect the genuine fears held by many Americans in the context of the current economic difficulties facing their nation and the world.

However, as experience has constantly taught us, the kind of protectionism that was envisioned in the stimulus bill prior to the amendment passed last night is precisely the kind of counterproductive measure that would worsen the crisis and not contribute to a workable solution for all who are affected across the world.

We in Canada must be especially vigilant when protectionism raises its head in the United States.

It was President John F. Kennedy who said, “Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends”.

This is, of course, very true, and our interdependence has been for the most part mutually beneficial. However, at times like this, when fear and uncertainty are prevalent, this close relationship and interdependency can create vulnerabilities that are very challenging when protectionism is promoted.

There is little doubt that the United States remains the single most powerful economic force in the world. That which affects the United States, like a stone dropped in a pond, will ripple outward and affect those far beyond its borders. It will also disproportionately affect those who are the most interdependent and who are geographically close to the United States. Canada is one of those countries.

I am reminded of comments by former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, who stated that living next to the United States was like sleeping next to an elephant: one is affected by every twitch and grunt. While the Senate has indeed amended the U.S. stimulus bill, the grunt remains something of concern.

The protectionist rhetoric that has been heard within the U.S. Congress and across the country is precisely the kind of talk heard during the Great Depression of the 1920s and the 1930s.

The buy American provisions, which were fortunately mitigated last night, were eerily reminiscent of Smoot-Hawley, which was a resolution that in the minds of most economists was a major contributor to the Great Depression.

Smoot-Hawley radically increased tariffs on almost a thousand manufactured items and agricultural products, causing an even further decrease in the value of stock market indices, and it prompted retaliatory measures across the world. These measures did not resolve issues either in the United States or abroad, but actually dramatically worsened them. The government of the day had the opportunity nonetheless to lobby then-President Hoover not to pass this legislation. The president was not partial to the legislation, yet the government of the day was silent, to the detriment of both nations.

While the current stimulus package has been amended and the most egregious protectionist measures have apparently been removed, I encourage the government to remain ever-vigilant on this file. While the Senate and the new administration of President Barack Obama have pulled back from protectionism, this spirit of withdrawal and defensiveness is still very much in the minds of millions of Americans.

The Prime Minister asserts his understanding of the Great Depression and certainly argues that it was trade barriers, not a stock market crash, that caused, in part, the Great Depression of the 1930s. While I will not here dispute his assertion, it leaves me to ask why the government has not been more proactive in ensuring that protectionist provisions were not included in the initial U.S. stimulus if it was aware of the threat posed by them.

Canada has greatly benefited from its relationship with the United States, in trade in particular. We are linked through countless agreements, most notable among which are the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

The North American Free Trade Agreement has revolutionized continental trade and investment and helped unlock our region's economic potential, yet at the same time the relative costs of Canadian products and services are increasing due to ongoing U.S. concerns about border security.

The Canadian Trade Commissioner Service, which expanded in 2003 under the previous Liberal government, with 40 consulates general, consulates, trade offices and honorary consuls located in major commercial centres across the United States, provides Canadian businesses with a network supplying the information, advice and support they need to advance their commercial interests, with increasing emphasis on cultivating partnership opportunities in foreign investment and in science and technology for Canadian firms to integrate into U.S.-led and other global supply chains.

All of these realities confirm what most of the U.S. already knows: our economic interests are inextricably linked with those of the United States. When we moved away from a predominance of trade with Great Britain following the Second World War, we turned to the only logical alternative, our neighbour to the south. Since then, we have arrived at a time when 60% of our imports originate from the United States and 40% of our exports flow to them.

We should consider ourselves fortunate that in prosperous times, while other countries push aggressively to establish increased and improved preferential trade links with the United States, Canada enjoys preferential access to the American market. The long-standing arrangement was at risk with the stimulus bill being considered in the United States, and while the offending measures have been removed from the bill, we must continue to monitor closely the emergence of such sentiments among Americans.

We need continued action from the government. We need it to be proactive and not, as it is in this case, reactive. We on this side of this House recognize that it is hesitant to do so, as it has been hesitant with every major economic decision since the start of the crisis. However, it is time to be vigilant and to be unafraid to assert our position in advance of protectionist measures.

In the words of the great thinker Søren Kierkegaard:

It is perfectly true, as philosophers say, that life must be understood backwards. But they forget the other proposition, that it must be lived forwards.

We cannot afford to forget the lessons of the past. Canadian livelihoods are at stake, as are the values of our natural resources and our partnerships with the United States. However, it is not simply enough to act now on information we have had for 70-odd years. We must act now to prevent this sort of reaction from occurring in the future. With the dawn of a new administration in the United States, Canada must act to establish the sort of relationship with the United States through which our position will be well known and clear in advance of any protectionist measures.

President Kennedy's words, as noted earlier, are profound. We share a common border and have much in common. While not always in agreement on many issues, United States and Canada are neighbours and friends. Our vast continent, with forests as old as time itself and resources scarcely imagined anywhere else in the world, is still very much a new frontier. There are new winds of change blowing across America. President Barack Obama is a symbol of such change. His willingness to hear our concerns and modify his position is evidence of this new reality.

Let us remember that we share so much that we must always work together for our mutual best interest and for the great benefit of all people of the world.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague, who gave a wonderful presentation on the challenges before us, how he sees Canada-U.S. relations can be improved, not only in trade but also in terms of the social issues that affect both our countries.

We know that we are both facing demographic challenges and an aging population. We know that we have huge health challenges because the pressures being applied to our health care systems vastly exceed the increase in GDP. I would like to ask my hon. colleague if he does not think that there are opportunities for cross-border collaboration in terms of being able to link up the universities, post-secondary institutions and think tanks to be able to get the best and brightest of both countries? Can we develop a formal mechanism through which those groups within our respective countries can collaborate more effectively to share the research and development in science and social policy fields that will enable us to grasp the best and brightest of what we both have in our countries, and apply them to the mutual challenges we face?

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for an excellent question. I especially admire the member for his advocacy on issues of human rights, universal health and education. These are things that he, as a long-time member of this House, has been fighting for.

I think he is absolutely right that with the new Obama administration there is an opportunity for Canada to work together with the U.S. on partnerships on issues of social justice, not just between our two countries but around the world. There are opportunities to exchange. Canada has, of course, really benefited from our universal health care. This is something the U.S. now recognizes. It is also very vital for them. President Obama also wants to move to a health plan that covers the most vulnerable in his country. I think that is a smart and wise thing to do.

There are things we can learn from each other. We should use this opportunity to work collaboratively with the new president, because he certainly wants to work with us and with partners around the world.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his tempered but helpful remarks.

Given that the U.S. is our largest trading partner and accounts for some 75% of our trade, there has been the suggestion that we should be looking abroad for new trade opportunities with Europe, South America and Asia.

I am wondering what the member's views would be in terms of Canada's becoming more aggressive in seeking out these opportunities. There are some who suggest that there is a huge risk involved in hanging our hat on one partner, as opposed to perhaps diversifying our trade opportunities.

I would welcome the hon. member's comments.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a good question. If the government is really serious about diversifying our trade, which I think is important for Canada to do, we would also have to look at our partners and the relationship we would have with our partners.

In particular, Brazil, India and China are very important countries. We would have to have closer relationships and much more workable relations with these countries if we are to diversify our economy. We cannot do this at the same time as attacking and not working with our partners.

We have to be there to work with them. I am pleased that the investment has been made over the years into Canada by countries like Brazil. I was just elected today as chair of the Canada-Brazil Parliamentary Association. I want to state that Brazil is an emerging market that we have ignored for too long. We need to get back into the game and to say to this very large partner in the Americas that we want be there as well. We want to participate. We want to work with them in partnership.

I think there is an opportunity to do that. We have a new parliamentary secretary for the Americas and a new minister of state for the Americas. We should use those tools and work together to make sure we diversify our economy, because it is to the benefit of all Canadians across the country.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak to this important motion introduced by the member for Kings—Hants.

We only need to look at history to prove without a doubt that there is a tremendous cost to protectionism. When we look at the last time the world and certainly North America faced a tremendous economic challenge of this magnitude, it was just after the stock market crash in 1929. The U.S. responded with a series of protectionist measures which had a huge detrimental impact, and which many would argue created the Great Depression.

Today there is a similar lure of protectionism, an oversimplified argument that if we just insulate ourselves and trade among ourselves and close the doors and batten down the hatches an international storm will pass us by. Protectionism is once again luring certain elements within the U.S. Congress. Unfortunately Congress has a long tradition of protectionism, particularly when times get tough. One would expect that the Conservative government would have been right on top of this, that the government would have, at the earliest opportunity, as soon as the president was sworn in, or much before that, anticipated that that would have been the response, but unfortunately that was far from the case.

What we traded was the Conservatives' idolization of Republicans that had them fearing criticizing Republicans because of the tremendous honour and esteem in which they held them. That has been replaced now with a complete lack of contacts with the Democrats. The result of that is that Canada, in both situations, has been left unprotected and our interests largely undefended.

I want to speak about the buy American clause. The developments that came out of the U.S. Senate and supported by President Obama are very encouraging. That there is now going to be respect for foreign trade agreements is good, but we cannot drop our vigilance. The reality is that the protectionist forces are very large and the Conservative government has not been effective to this point in time. The government has failed to advance our interests and to ensure that this whole debacle did not happen in the first place. It is very easy for very loosely worded language to develop into something far more concerning.

As our party's critic for public safety and national security, I want to speak of a secondary threat to trade between Canada and the U.S. that is non-tariff based and that could potentially have an even bigger detrimental impact. I am concerned that the government has largely been silent on the security issues and how those issues have created massive barriers to trade. In particular, Secretary Napolitano, on January 30, 2009, ordered a comprehensive review of U.S. vulnerabilities along the northern border with recommendations as to what could be done to strengthen it. In her statement, she said:

What are the current vulnerabilities, the overall strategy for reducing those vulnerabilities, the requirements, the programs, the budget, and the timeframe for improving security along this border and what level of risk will remain once programs are completed?

Her announcement was accompanied by a very remarkable statement, one which greatly concerns me. She said that the effect that a terrorist threat had on the Canada-U.S. border was greater than on the U.S.-Mexico border. This is a dramatic shift. I do not think we have ever heard that kind of language used before. Once again there is talk in the United States of the terrorism in Canada and the great threat on the border. This has a profound implication for our ability to move goods and services. It has prompted some U.S. newspaper editorials to call the northern border “America's weakest link: an easy entry point from which to launch an attack on U.S. soil”. That was in The Washington Times on January 29.

Talk like this is detrimental to Canada-U.S. relations on trade and continental security, and it is further made worse by the laissez faire attitude taken by the Conservative government. It is hard to know exactly why the U.S. has turned its spotlight on the northern border, especially considering its more habitual focus on the south.

As Martin Collacott, a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and former Canadian ambassador, wrote in an article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen yesterday, Secretary Napolitano's “decision reflects to some extent the interests of protectionist elements in the United States prepared to use security measures as a means of slowing down the movement of imports from Canada into the United States”.

One would expect with a statement as concerning as that, that the government would act swiftly, that it would speak out and ensure that Canadian interests were protected and that the American government understood that this sort of talk was simply misguided and frankly a little ridiculous.

The reality though is that the government did nothing. The response has been complete silence. It is almost as if the government is ambivalent to the issue, yet the report which is to be tabled is going to be done so on February 17, just a few weeks from now, immediately before the meeting the Prime Minister will have with President Obama. The presentation that will be made by Secretary Napolitano, the statement of where the Americans are going with security on the border between Canada and the U.S. will have profound implications for Canada-U.S. relations and for trade, and we are completely missing in action. It is unclear what the Prime Minister will even do to react once the statement actually is made.

I would certainly submit that while we are considering protectionism in the form of this buy American clause, we should also similarly expect the government to be speaking out on issues of security and the free movement of goods and services across our border.

I would also like to speak about the western hemisphere travel initiative. This is another area of great disappointment for me. The reality of the implementation of the western hemisphere travel initiative is to see the tourism dollars in Canada reduced by some $2 billion since it has been brought into force and effect.

The requirement for citizens of the United States to have a passport to enter Canada has been severely detrimental. In point of fact, only about one-quarter of U.S. citizens hold a valid U.S. passport. It makes it very difficult for them. If normally they would go into Canada for a day or a couple of days, if they have to get a passport beforehand, and some 75% of Americans do not have one, they are making a decision not to go to Canada.

Where has the Canadian government been on this issue? Again it has been almost completely silent. While a number of northern U.S. governors, senators and congressmen have been recognizing that their states have been adversely impacted, while they were expecting to have more cooperation from the Canadian government, they have been deeply disappointed by the lack of voice and the lack of courage of action by the Canadian government. That is an area too on which we desperately need to act, especially when we consider that some 300,000 people cross the border every day.

Trade in the context of our country is so greatly impacted by what happens with the United States. In fact, east-west trade is far less than north-south trade. Protectionism and lack of action by the government to deal with the security issues that I have just talked about puts in jeopardy bilateral trade of some $577 billion a year. That is about $1.6 billion each and every day in goods and services that cross the border.

If we are going to ensure the vitality of our trading relationship, indeed if we are going to ensure the strength of our economy, we need to have far more action by the government than it has taken to date. Simply being reactionary is unacceptable.

I commend the member for Kings—Hants for bringing forward this motion, allowing me and members of this House the opportunity to talk about this important issue and to put pressure on the government to take action.

[Keith Martin, Liberal, Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, BC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to mention three general areas and one specific point in which Canada can take a much greater role but in which the government has been found wanting . The first is energy security. The second is the environmental crisis. The third is security in general.

Does the member not feel that Canada and the United States could do a much better job of engaging in integrating into a trans-border energy grid that would benefit both of our countries?

On the issue of security, this is still a huge challenge for the U.S. government as well as ours. President Obama has said that he is going to do things differently. He is going to start engaging with other countries and groups, particularly those in the Muslim world, and will try to talk to people who the previous U.S. administration had excluded. It is fundamentally important that our country start talking to people with whom we have not spoken before. Speaking with them does not condone what they have done, but excluding them certainly does not enable us to get to the table to resolve issues.

There are groups that we have not spoken to that are absolutely not monolithic. There are elements of these groups that are very different. For example, the Taliban is not monolithic. Hamas is not monolithic. They represent different areas of the Middle East.

Does my hon. colleague not think that our government, instead of eviscerating foreign affairs, should actually talk to groups previously not spoken to before, and engage in these seemingly intractable issues that need to be addressed in order for us to pursue a safer and more secure world?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more. One of the greatest sources of pride Canadians have is that Canada is a force for balance and peace in the world. Canada traditionally has played a role and has been seen as an honest broker, an independent third party in things that are going on in the world. It uses its goodwill and the notion that it is not a satellite of any other power, to exert its force in a way that really punches above its weight.

This has trade implications as well because at the end of the day, trade is all about the strength and force of our relationships. If we are not working on those relationships, if we are not demonstrating in meaningful ways that our first objective is to take a fair and balanced approach in how we deal with international affairs, we can greatly hurt our ability to trade effectively.

The member also commented on energy security. I completely agree. I will not reiterate what he said other than to say that I agree.

Lastly, with respect to the environmental crisis, we just heard today that the scant measures taken by the Conservative government, for example the transit credit, have resulted in absolutely no reductions. Yet again, it was placebo policy. The difference in this case is that it actually cost us a lot of money to get to nowhere. That might have been fine when the United States was so far behind in ignoring environmental issues, but now that there is an administration in the United States that puts the environment at the centre of its economic growth and development, we risk falling behind the Americans tremendously in allowing them to create the jobs of the future.

If we thought that the Internet was a source for growth and new development in innovation, it is nothing compared to the post-carbon technologies that are going to come. We should not be allowing the Americans to develop that technology and those jobs. In the last three years we have given up the opportunity to lead in those areas.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech and his insight. On the whole issue of security and on the whole issue of public safety, one of the concerns I hear from many business people is that American concerns around homeland security have led to a thickening of the Canada-U.S. border. The smart borders initiative that was introduced by the Chrétien and Martin governments has stalled under the current Conservative government.

I would appreciate the hon. member's views on that and what we ought to be doing to get that agenda back on track so we see the movement of people and goods and at the same time maintain good security for both Canada and the U.S.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is an incredibly important issue. When I sat down with GM which has its headquarters just to the east of my riding, its first issue was just-in-time delivery and the ability to get goods and services across the border. The hon. member is absolutely right that things have completely stalled. In fact, we have seen almost no progress in three years, almost a reversal. It is so much harder to get goods and services across the border. There is a disappointing silence from the Conservative government and a refusal to take action.

This is something I am going to be working on as critic. I know that I will be working with the hon. member on that.

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the motion from the member for Kings—Hants. The motion essentially urges our government to intervene with the American government in fighting attempts to build protectionist walls between our economies. I want to say that I have great news for the member for Kings—Hants.

Our Prime Minister and Conservative government are way out in front on this issue. We have actively been engaging the new American president and his officials in opposing protectionist measures. So, essentially, we are already doing what the motion asks our government to do. Which of course begs the question, why is this motion before the House? I can only speculate as to the political motives behind that.

It is not surprising that our Conservative government would take the threat of protectionism so seriously. Over 75% of all of our trade is with the United States. Any attempts to put up artificial barriers in violation of the NAFTA would pose huge financial challenges for Canadians. That is why our Prime Minister has acted so quickly in engaging the Americans on this issue.

Just so Canadians understand how extensive our efforts have been in addressing the challenges facing our manufacturing industries, I would like to mention a few. As we know, the steel industry is petrified about the posturing of the American government concerning setting up new trade barriers; for example, its buy American proposal.

We understand that the Canadian steel industry is under intense pressure because these are very challenging times for employers and employees. Global economic conditions have deteriorated to the extent that the international monetary fund is forecasting a mere .5% world growth in 2009.

However, there is also a broad worldwide consensus among economists that Canada will outperform all the other G7 countries. Why is that? There is an answer to that question. It is largely due to the measures taken previously by our Conservative government and the sound competitive financial system we have in place in Canada.

Some of the measures that we have undertaken are as follows. We started off by reducing taxes. We started that program back in 2006, shortly after we were elected, and in each successive budget, we have reduced taxes to Canadians. In fact, the total value of the tax reductions is somewhere in the order of $200 billion over five years. That is perhaps the defining distinction between us and the opposition parties. When we ask Liberals in this House, they will say they would prefer to have their hands in taxpayers' pockets, and they actually have spoken openly against the tax reductions that we have incorporated into our economic action plan.

We have also paid down the debt by $37 billion. Now there are some in the opposition benches who have suggested paying down $37 billion was squandering the taxpayers money. We believe it is a wise investment. It is what average Canadians do when they receive little extra money, they pay down their house mortgage. Somehow, that does not make sense to our opposition friends.

Before I proceed, I want to state that I will be sharing my time with the member for London West,

Another thing we have done is establish our “Advantage Canada” plan to make our economy more competitive in the global marketplace. We have given the Bank of Canada additional power to inject liquidity into our lending institutions. We have increased local, regional and national investments by accelerating our massive infrastructure program, the largest such investment ever in the history of our country.

Finally, we have provided more financing for mortgages, and for car and business loans. This is to free up more credit so that our economy can get going again. That is not to say that we are out of the woods. The International Monetary Fund is forecasting negative growth for Canada in 2009. Canada, as well know, is not immune to this global economic situation.

Our government recognizes that the steel industry is a cornerstone industry in our modern economy. In this regard, Canada is no different. The presence of the steel industry has enabled other sectors of our economy to prosper and flourish, and among those industries are the auto industry, the construction industry, the pipe and tube industry, and the fabricated metal industry. All of these purchase steel that is further manufactured into finished goods.

A number of my colleagues have already highlighted how important that steel industry is to Canada. Believe it or not, in 2007, the Canadian steel industry alone employed 30,000 people. It had revenues of a whopping $16.8 billion. The industry has major facilities in Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.

In 2007 the Canadian steel industry also exported about 49% of its total shipments and about 90% of those exports went to the United States. Hence, our concern when our American cousins start threatening to raise those trade barriers again.

Is the steel industry important to our economic well-being? Absolutely. That is why we are not taking protectionist threats from the U.S. lying down. We have been engaged.

What is clear is that the steel industry in North America is highly integrated. That is what happens when different countries work together to cooperate and expand their mutual trade opportunities. This integration has been increasing, thanks to the benefits of the North American Free Trade Agreement. This integration has gone even further with the consolidation that the steel industry has undergone over the past three or four years. Our Conservative government has been addressing the steel industry issues for many years, and we continue to do so.

My colleague, the Minister of International Trade, is actively engaged with our American counterparts to address potential trade irritants. These include: unfair trade; government support for the steel industry in various countries, in other words subsidies; China and its steel policies; climate change policy; and the movement of manufacturing out of North America. I would add that our government and the industry have worked collaboratively on these issues in the past, and we expect to do so in the future.

All Canadians know that Canada did not start this worldwide recession. It might take some time for the opposition for that to sink in, but in fact Canadians know that. Our government, under the leadership of the Prime Minister, continues to take steps to cushion our economy against the blows that many countries around the world feel from this economic crisis.

We have responded by providing new powers to protect our banking system. Moreover, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance engaged in broad consultations with Canadians and industry leaders when drafting the economic action plan that was tabled in the House on January 27.

Our action plan proposes measures amounting to $29 billion of stimulus in 2009 alone. That is the equivalent of almost 2% of the size of our economy. This is good news. We have covered many bases. We are reducing taxes. We are spending a lot of money on infrastructure to give our economy a shot in the arm. We are also protecting those who have lost their jobs due to the economic crisis around the world. We have enhanced EI benefits and we have enhanced training opportunities for those who have lost their jobs and want to find new places of employment.

Our action plan also includes supporting shipyards with $175 million and the procurement of 98 new Coast Guard vessels. We are getting the job done.

I am excited about the economic action plan. Of course, we are also addressing the trade challenge we have from the United States. I am confident, as we move forward, that we will be able to address those challenges. We have established a working relationship with the new administration in the United States. As we know, the President of the United States will be visiting Canada, his first visit to a foreign nation. I am pleased that President Obama has actually followed a former precedent to do so.

I trust that the opposition will cooperate and collaborate with us as we move forward in building our economy.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax—Pickering, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the member has a tough job because the government has done so little on the issue of protectionism that it is necessary to sort of fill the speech with mostly information about the budget.

I am wondering if the member could answer specifically why there has not been a response from the government on the statement made by Secretary Janet Napolitano. These statements are of deep concern. They are actually stating that the terrorism threat is greater on the Canada-U.S. border than it is on the Mexican-U.S. border. The government has not responded at all.

This report is going to be delivered around the same time that the president visits Canada. We have a very limited window and the government's complete lack of response almost indicates ambivalence. Can the member explain the lack of action in this area?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am disappointed that the member is not focusing on the very motion that is before us today which is a motion that requests that the government move forward in ensuring that trade barriers are not erected by the United States. That is the motion.

I would be pleased to comment a little on some of the things that our government has been doing. The Prime Minister has been engaged in this issue. We know that our international trade minister was in Davos and is continuing to engage with many of the trade representatives from around the world including the United States.

We have heard from the President of the United States that he opposes trade barriers and protectionism of the sort that is being proposed by the House of Representatives. We know that there have been some amendments made in the House of Representatives. We also know that the senate is really concerned about this proposal of buy American which would restrict trade with Canada.

I believe we are making significant progress. I am pleased the Prime Minister and our government are engaged in this very serious issue.

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

Madam Speaker, the Conservative government has admitted today that the buy American act is legal. The parliamentary secretary said that a few hours earlier. So we have made some progress in trade education with the Conservative government.

The member for Abbotsford talked about the fact that the budget may have some infrastructure funding, may because we do not actually trust the Conservatives to bring this in.

However, he did not raise of course the irony that if there is infrastructure money that is spent from Canadian taxpayers, that money could go to buy overseas third world steel. In other words, Canadian taxpayers' money, because we have no buy Canadian policy in place, would be used to fuel jobs in other countries. There is a real irony there.

President Obama did not say what the member purported him to say. He has actually said that the economic stimulus package and the buy American provisions in both the House of Representatives and the senate are going to go through and he is going to sign off on them in two weeks. They are legal. Buy American is legal.

Why is the government not bringing in buy Canadian provisions, so that Canadian taxpayers' money can go to fill Canadian jobs?

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Madam Speaker, that question clearly betrays the NDP ideology behind every position it takes on trade.

As we know the NDP is alone in the House of Commons in speaking out in favour of building silos of protection around the world, including Canada. The NDP members oppose free trade. They opposed NAFTA, for crying out loud. They do not believe in free trade.

Canada is a trading nation, one of the greatest trading nations in the world. In fact, all the evidence proves that since the North American Free Trade Agreement was adopted and ratified, trade between Canada and the United States has almost tripled. That is the greatest trade news Canadians could have expected. We far exceeded the expectations that we had when NAFTA was actually implemented.

I know the member's ideology puts him into a straitjacket. We will never get any other kind of a position from the NDP or from that member, but I am pleased to say that we have been able to garner the support not only of our own party but the Liberals support us and the Bloc supports us.

Canada is a free trading nation. Quite frankly, we have to so everything we can to maintain those trade relationship ties with our American cousins to the south.

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the proud, recently elected member of Parliament for London West, it is with great pleasure that I contribute to this important debate.

Before I get to the topic at hand, I would like to make a few comments as this is my first speech in this magnificent chamber.

When one does a maiden speech, one of the appropriate things to do is to thank their family and I can be no different.

My wife Judite is a successful businesswoman in her own right. Her advertisement for the flower shop that she runs states that it is the oldest flower shop in Canada, started in 1869. My wife is an immigrant to this country, of proud Portuguese parents, born in Africa. She came to Canada just to find me. She has been a successful entrepreneur and past president of the Portuguese Business Professionals Association.

My daughter Claudia is also a successful businessperson. She is the owner of a Belgian chocolate shop called Chocolaterie Bernard Callebaut. She is married to a fellow named Cedo Ivanisevic, whose father came to our country from Croatia. He is of Serbian descent and he came to Canada for better opportunities. Cedo is a firefighter, and he and my daughter have given me two wonderful grandchildren, Maia and Katia.

I would like to tell the House a bit about my city if I may. London, for those who do not know, is the 10th largest city in Canada. We have a well balanced economy. We have an internationally respected health care system, with training hospitals throughout and major breakthroughs go on in London Health Sciences Centre regularly.

London is a major transportation hub. It is uniquely positioned within one hour of one major U.S. border point and within two hours of two other major U.S. border points.

London is uniquely positioned with three highways, Highway 401, Highway 402 and Highway 403, and literally in the centre of them. I tell the House this because as a transportation hub, the need for good road service is critical.

London has strong rail service with service by CN and CP.

Finally, we have London International Airport, which is one of Canada's busiest airports.

Through many of my experiences in life, I am reminded of a book written by Robert Fulghum entitled All I Ever Really Needed to Know I learned in Kindergarten.

Unfortunately, many people told me, when I was running for office, that I was just working hard to get into Canada's largest kindergarten class. While I can see sometimes why there is a sentiment out there like that, I think that generalization is inappropriate for the majority of members.

In my short time here I have quickly seen the efforts, the sacrifices and the energy members spend on behalf of their constituents, but I believe we can all do better.

Just as in kindergarten, we get further ahead in life by building up those around us rather than tearing them down. That is why my good friend of many years, the member opposite from London North Centre, and I established early that together we could achieve more than if we worked against each other. Our constituents have made it clear that they appreciate our positive, co-operative style more than the destructive partisanship that often prevails. We could all achieve more if we worked this way. I sincerely hope that will happen more often in the House.

I am not hesitant to say that the member for York South—Weston has contributed to this debate in a thoughtful way, with dialogue that is positive and well-intended. I am sure this has been noticed and I believe his constituents have seen that as well.

In kindergarten we learn our manners. We learn that when people are speaking, we wait our turn and listen to what they have to say. Members will not find me heckling in question period or debate because no matter how much I disagree, or agree, with what a colleague is saying, if it is their turn to speak, then they deserve that respect. I hope members of the House feel the same.

In kindergarten we learn to say “thank you” as well. I want to acknowledge and thank Sue Barnes, the former member of Parliament for London West, for her many years of service. Her family made many sacrifices for her to do that and I thank them as well.

Perhaps one of the big things we learn after kindergarten is that we all get older and what we did back then forms us into who we are today. When I leave this place, as we all will some day, I hope to be able to look back and say I learned a lot, that in some fashion I made a contribution and, most important, that I helped make the lives of others a little better.

I ask the indulgence of the House for one more analogy and then I will speak directly to the topic at hand.

Today we are talking about trade, but this too we learned about in kindergarten. We learned that sharing toys, sharing resources made us all better off. We could hoard our toys, but we did not. My granddaughters sometimes do though.

We did not hoard our resources then because it did not make sense and it does not make sense when we are adults either. I firmly believe that trade has made us better off, richer as a society, and to tear down those relationships now would be a tragic step backward.

That is why I welcome this opportunity to discuss how much trade means to the Canadian economy and, most relevant to this discussion, how much the North American Free Trade Agreement has contributed to Canada's prosperity. I bring this up in our dialogue around the European Free Trade Agreement because it is important to understand how this agreement has enhanced Canada's economy and how future trade deals will continue to secure a positive economic future for Canadians.

I bring this up in our dialogue around the European Free Trade Agreement because it is important to understand how this agreement has enhanced Canada's economy and how future trade deals will continue to secure a positive economic future for Canadians.

Canada's history is founded on trade. Canada is and must be a trading nation. We have an extremely well-educated innovative and progressive population. However, our domestic market is relatively small and therefore Canada is not considered a major player on the world stage. Well, that is our reality.

Our market is only about one-tenth the size of the United States. Therefore, Canada needs the opportunities which international trade provides if we to realize our enormous potential. In these difficult economic times, international trade will continue to be a major contributor to our success in overcoming the challenges we are facing.

How much do we depend on trade? In 2007 Canada's international trade was equivalent in value to more than two-thirds of our economy. An extraordinarily high number of Canadian jobs are linked to trade. In 2007 the value of our trade with the United States was equivalent to more than 46% of Canada's gross domestic product. This could not be more important than in cities like London, Ontario, where we see thousands of tonnes of goods travel between Canada and the United States every day by truck, rail and air.

Healthy trade is vital to the survival of cities like mine. This trade represents a lot of economic activity and a lot of Canadian jobs, jobs that depend upon open borders and the preservation of international rules to keep them open.

That is why the Conservative government supports an ambitious trade agenda in the World Trade Organization. It is why we value our trading relationship. It is why we are continuing to expand Canadian opportunities by negotiating new trade agreements, such as those with EFTA and Peru and Colombia. It is also why this government is working so hard to maintain the free flow of trade within North American markets at this time of economic crisis.

No matter how much we diversify, North American trade will always loom large within our international trade priorities. Trilateral merchandise trade among the NAFTA partners has more than tripled since the agreement entered into effect and reached almost $1 billion in 2007.

In terms of Canada-U.S. trade, about one-third is now said to be intra-firm, which means that it takes place across borders, but within the same company. No great deal more of Canada-U.S. trade involves building things together, different companies on different sides of the border contributing expertise, goods and labour to the manufacturing process.

London is filled with multinational companies. These companies use our local expertise for parts of their operations and we rely on the expertise of their foreign branches for job stability. They cannot do it alone, nor can we.

Look at General Dynamics Land Systems and Trojan Technologies, to name just two, that export significant products throughout the world. Without international trade, London could not survive. I would suggest that most cities across the country could not survive and prosper without free trade.

Let us not forget that NAFTA has opened doors between Canada and Mexico as well. Since signing onto NAFTA, our merchandise trade with Mexico has almost quintupled.

Let us take a look at investment levels, which have seen a dramatic rise. In 2007 foreign direct investment in Canada reached just over $500 billion and almost 58% of this investment came from our NAFTA partners. In other words, about $6 out of every $10 in foreign direct investment in Canada, investment in communities across the country, came from NAFTA. Investors view Canada not only as an important market in its own right, but as a gateway to North America.

NAFTA also contributes to Canada's success on the world stage and is a valuable platform that Canada uses to reach the rest of the world.

It is why we are pleased, as well, that the London International Airport has been approved for the cargo trans-shipment program. It opens up huge opportunities for all Canadian companies, but especially those in London.

There are many benefits that Canada enjoys by being a partner in NAFTA, and it is not just large corporations. In fact, 94% of Canadian exporters are companies with fewer than 200 employees, 73% have fewer than 50 employees. These small businesses rely heavily on doing business within the North American marketplace. They rely on this government to provide the right conditions for them to succeed and to prosper, and this government will continue to deliver.

For a country the size of Canada, which needs access to world markets to guarantee prosperity, it would be worse than naive to think that closing our borders to trade would boost the Canadian economy. In fact, the opposite is true. Any jobs created by turning inward would be vastly overshadowed by the jobs lost if our ability to export were curtailed. We would be naive to close our own markets, and we would be grossly negligent if we stood by while our trading partners closed theirs. We intend to do neither.

I have shown how Canadians have benefited from the NAFTA experience. I hope people realize, in talking about the importance of trade to Canada and the economic gains and job creation and spinoff effects for all of Canadian society, that NAFTA has mattered in a positive way. These are important reasons why our government will continue to defend against protectionism and ensure that we make the most of our current trade agreements and continue to seek ways to enhance Canada's trading position on the global stage.

Finally, it is a sincere privilege for me as the member for London West to sit in the House. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I compliment the member opposite for giving the House an opportunity to see the dimensions of our discussion. With the facts he has given, he has recounted our dependency on all those issues that address international trade.

One is tempted to ask the obvious question. The government has a recognition of the importance of trade with the United States, in particular, and he mentions the NAFTA partners. Given the dependency of Canada's GDP on that bilateral exchange with the United States as well as the intra-company exchanges that contribute to our wealth, why would the government not have foreseen what is developing in the United States?

I am not talking about somebody being prescient. All one needed to do was to follow the primary campaigns and the election just completed in the United States to see that there were forces developing there that would inhibit our trade potential. Why does he think the government's belated language today is a good policy of inaction in the face of challenges that we must continually nurture?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will say a couple of things. If we go back to 2007, when we showed surpluses, we reduced our national debt by almost $40 billion. We have reduced taxes for Canadians across the country.

As a past president of my London Chamber of Commerce, when one understands the impact that business has and the importance of a responsible government to reduce taxes and debt, it is no different than homeowners who have to reduce their debt and ensure that they take personal responsibility for themselves. I sincerely believe this government has taken personal responsibility. It is why we got into our economic crisis later than every other industrialized country in the free world and why I believe we will get out of it sooner.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the member for London West for a good maiden speech in the House. I welcome him to the House and also welcome him to the Standing Committee on International Trade. I look forward to working with him and others members of the committee on trade issues.

I will ask him a polite question, given that he had a polite speech, about the lack of a buy Canada act. I am getting some heckling, but I have tried to build a relationship here and I would hope the Conservative members would allow me to do that across the aisle.

We have been talking about the fact that the buy America act is legal. We know that it is under NAFTA. We know that President Obama is following his own mandate. Does he not feel that a buy Canada act to build Canadian jobs would be effective in Canada?

[Ed Holder, Conservative, London West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the polite tone in which that question was asked. I am sure that in the future all of his questions will be equally polite. I am confident of that.

Even President Obama has been extremely clear that he is concerned about the protectionist measures that have been initially introduced in the U.S. Congress, which is why he will speak to the senate to try to amend that legislation.

What we have to be careful of is that when we establish protectionist policies, all we ultimately do is create a downward spiral to our business. In effect, what happens is we are no longer hewers of wood and drawers of water. We rely on trade to make this work for us.

It is not useful to have a protectionist policy such as buy Canada. In automobile trade, 80% of our automobiles go to the States. What would happen to this country if we could not export the cars we make to the United States? That would be devastating to this country and our economy. That would be brutal.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am here as a stand-in for the great member for Sault Ste. Marie. I would just like to inform his constituents that he is not well. He has been burning the candle at both ends and he is not able to do his speech. He had it ready and threw me some notes. I kind of feel like I felt once during the last term when I got here with about half a minute to go and I did not really know what I was going to say. Papers were flowing all over the place. However, I have a little more experience now so hopefully I will be okay.

Free trade and NAFTA are debates that have been going on this country since we had the debate on whether or not to have the free trade agreement with the United States. We have heard today in the House many reasons for the idea of having open borders and free trade with our neighbour. On the other hand, many people feel that the agreement that was initially signed and subsequent agreements, such as NAFTA, have been detrimental to the prosperity of our country.

I suspect the answer lies somewhere in between and I would lean more to the detrimental side than to the other. Having said that, however, it is true that the agreement has opened up jobs, but on the other hand, we have lost close to 300,000 manufacturing jobs in this country alone.

We have gained jobs but often the jobs that have been created are part time or are not well-paying jobs. We analyzed it and some analysts have looked at the agreement. As a result of free trade, the average working family, those people who need to make a halfway decent living to survive, are worse off than they were before.

If we look at the area of agriculture, which I will go into a little more later, there have been some advantages but there have been many instances where it has really hurt our farmers. I will then actually talk a bit about the agreement and what it may be leading into, and that is a security and prosperity partnership.

As I came into the House today, I brought my bundle of work, as I usually do, and I happened to notice a letter from Mr. Armstrong of Kaslo, which is very timely. I was about to answer the letter but maybe I will be able to comment a bit on what he says here and share it with my colleagues in the House.

On the second page of his letter, he is concerned about the budget and has suggestions as to where we should go. He says, ”It is time to act as an independent country rather than an appendage of the U.S. I have two thoughts here. One is to renegotiate NAFTA. Eliminate Chapter 11. Corporations shouldn't have the right to sue governments and supersede national laws. Trade tribunals lack adequate transparency and accountability, and consistently reflect a strong pro-corporate bias”.

I am not sure if many people in Canada know that since we negotiated NAFTA, corporations on both sides of the border can sue local governments. There has been a case of a Canadian corporation suing the California government because of its strong environmental laws. There are a number of documented cases where American corporations have sued and other corporations from other countries are suing our governments because of restrictions that they wish to impose on the environment with the idea that they want to protect their citizens.

It seems ludicrous to me that we have allowed our negotiators to sign an agreement that allows foreign corporations to sue our governments so that our tax dollars go to pay out or to finance the legal proceedings to protect our citizens. It does seem bizarre. Therefore, when Mr. Armstrong says that we should renegotiate NAFTA, he might have a point there. Which other country in the world has signed away an agreement to allow corporations to sue representatives of the people?

I would like to go further.The other contentious point of the whole NAFTA is the clause that says that we are locked into selling our oil and gas to the United States at a locked-in price, that we cannot cut back on our exports unless we cut back on our domestic consumption, which basically means that we have locked in our energy flow to the benefit of our neighbours to the south. We have been and continue to be a provider of raw materials to our neighbours to the south without having any control.

However, what is bizarre, if we look at what is happening east of Ottawa, is that we import 90% of our oil from offshore. On the one hand, we are selling our oil cheaply, allowing it to flow to the United States and we are building pipelines, and yet here we are importing 90% of our oil from other countries and areas of the world that may potentially be dangerous and from which, in the future, we may not be able to get our oil.

Mr. Armstrong also talks about NAFTA and says that we should to get NAFTA out of food of agriculture. As I said before, I do not think it is one way or the other. We need to look at this but I believe that we in Canada should be looking at any trade agreements we sign through the lens of a Canadian, in other words, is it in the best interests of Canada to do this or that agreement? We have seen the recent bill that was passed in the House, unfortunately, that now allows European countries to partake in more of the shipbuilding industry and take away jobs in Canada. I would say that signed agreement would be to our detriment. We lose Canadian jobs and our industry continues to downslide as a result of that agreement. I do not think that is right.

When I look at agriculture, a couple of things that stand out in my mind, which I talk about this a lot. One of them is the whole idea of dumping, and I will use the example of American apples, in our country. Because of NAFTA, we have allowed the free flow of fruit and vegetables across the border and what has happened from time to time is that the heavily subsidized apple industry in the United States has dumped apples at a price below the cost of production into Canadian markets.

A tribunal exists to regulate this but by the time we get things in motion and by the time the lawyers are hired, often it is too late and by that time the apple producer has lost money. What has happened as a result of this? Many producers in British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia have gone out of business. In the area that I represent, a lot of apple and fruit growers are converting to grapes because they are not able to make a living. One of the reasons for that is this agreement we have.

In our province, I would like to remind other members, that before free trade we had something like a thousand onion producers. Now we have maybe a handful. We can see that we are getting cheap produce in our supermarkets but there are many farmers who have lost their livelihood because of these trade agreements. I do not think, as we move on to explore export markets and different markets for our produce, we should be doing it on the backs of those producers here in Canada.

I want to talk a bit about the cattle industry and refer to a report that was published in November of last year by the National Farmers Union, entitled “The Farm Crisis and the Cattle Sector: Toward a New Analysis and New Solutions”.

I am pleased to report that we have talked and we have discussed, and we will have this report before our agriculture committee where we will be able to have an in-depth look at it.

One of the areas in the report concerns what is happening. What has happened to the effect that before the Canadian-U.S. agreement was signed in 1989, our cattle producers were making close to around $200 a hundredweight. I checked this out last night at a banquet as I was talking to some folks. Now, when we level the different year and the dollar, they are making less than $100. Exports have tripled, primarily to the United States, to around $33 billion a year. They have tripled during this time span. Our cattle producers are making less than they were 20 years. Costs are going up, which we will be talking about in committee, exports have gone up and we have created new markets but they are making less money and many are being forced out of business.

I have another phone call that I received from one of my constituents near Keremeos in the Similkameen area. He cannot make it any more as a business because of the high cost of input and the low cost he is receiving for his goods. Why did these prices fall? It coincides with our signing of NAFTA.

According to the report, in May 1989, Cargill opened its High River, Alberta beef packing plant. Its entry into the country's beef packing sector marked a dramatic acceleration in the transfer of control in the industry from a relatively large number of Canadian-based packers operating a large number of plants to two U.S.-based corporations that have concentrated production into a few huge plants.

Also in January 1989, “We implemented the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement thereby shifting Canada-U.S. market integration into high gear”.

As a result of this, and this has happened in other sectors, the more takeover there has been of Canadian business, the more difficult it has become for the primary producer in our country. Another follow-up of this whole agreement that is affecting the cattle industry is what we call captive supply. The big players like Cargill can hold and feed a number of cattle and then let them out in the market when the price is right, thereby undercutting the producer who is shipping his cattle to auction.

Those are some examples and, as I said, we will be debating this at agriculture committee. I know many people have read the report and it will be interesting to get some good feedback on this.

The other item, when we look at free trade, is the pressure at the negotiations going on at the World Trade Organization. Last night I had the honour of being invited to the banquet, as many colleagues have, of the Dairy Farmers of Canada. Farmers have been here for the last two days talking to us and asking to please not give in to world pressure to modify or destroy our supply management.

I would like to make the plea to please not give in to world pressure, not only to destroy our supply management, but to water down, or withdraw, or disintegrate our state trading enterprise, namely the Canadian Wheat Board. It is our business to do what we want to do, not from pressure from the WTO on supply management and the Wheat Board. I am hoping that the minister and the government will stand strong in defending our interests against this pressure.

As we move on, we see other effects of free trade agreements. My colleague from Burnaby—New Westminster has clearly outlined many times in the House the negative effect of the softwood lumber agreement. I have seen the devastating effect in my communities, in the forestry communities that have suffered, because we chose not to follow through with the legal process that we had. We signed the agreement and lost money. We see the effects of that with what is happening now in our forestry communities.

I will now come to the topic of buy Canadian, buy American, is this protectionism or is it not. It is my understanding that the discussions going on in the United States in regard to buy American do fall within the framework of the free trade agreement. If that is the case and the Americans can have that, why can we not, while still maintaining our ties and our trade, offer preference in certain industries to local Canadian procurement? At the same time, instead of pushing and raising the voice against the violation of this agreement, why can we not work with our partners to ensure that if the policy goes through in their country that there is an exemption for Canadian steel? If the policy goes through in our country, then why can we not we exempt the industry that is supplying our citizens here in Canada.

I need a question to pose to my colleagues. We are in tough economic times and we want to support industry. However, I have seen in my home province of British Columbia that we have purchased ferries to go between Vancouver Island and the Mainland from outside of the country and we have a shipbuilding industry here on both coasts.

The argument is that we got them for less. Of course we got them for less. The reason we got them for less is the people who are building them are probably making the equivalent of $2 an hour in some country that is on the way to being developed. Of course we can get them for less, and at the same time, our Canadian workers and their families suffer because of this kind of policy.

We talked about food security at the agriculture committee. We had a unanimous report, with the exception of one item. Everyone agreed to the various recommendations on food security. One of them was that Canada have a national procurement policy so that federal government institutions have as their priority to buy Canadian. We all agreed on that. It was agreed to by all the parties. We do agree on many items in our committee. The response we got back from the department was that we have to be careful of our trade obligations.

Yet we have seen with our partner to the south, in spite of the trade obligations, problems at our border. There was the BSE crisis. Tariffs have been slapped on other agricultural produce. Different tariffs that exist to this very day have been slapped on goods being shipped down to the south because the Americans decided to do that within the trade agreement.

Especially in these tough times it is important that we support our industry as much as possible. How can it be that our Department of National Defence signed a contract for military trucks with a U.S. company that actually operates in Canada but which will build the trucks in Texas? Meanwhile that company's plant in Chatham, Ontario, which is completely capable of doing that work, is laying off hundreds of people. It is hard to imagine why our own tax dollars are not being used to support our industry and our workers.

In a recent Vector poll nine out of ten Canadians said that the government should favour Canadian made goods in public transit. Stronger domestic procurement has also been supported by groups like the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters and the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. In recent months over a dozen municipalities have passed resolutions committing to maximize Canadian content when purchasing goods and services.

I would like to close by commenting on the latest dispute about the American steel policy. Rather than calling it a trade war and a violation of the agreements, we have to look carefully to see what is behind it. I read an article which said that what might be behind the policy are the strong American corporations that have offshore plants in other countries which would very much love not to have to adhere to a buy American policy so they could continue to make steel in other countries and bring it into the United States. The article presumes that maybe they are behind foreign governments, such as ours, lobbying the Americans to do away with this policy.

It is a point of view which I think is worthwhile exploring. I would suggest to the government and to the minister that we look at that. Are we being duped? Are we as Canadians once again being duped by the multinationals that want to ensure that they have free access to the American and Canadian markets without any kind of control either by the Americans or the Canadians?

That is everything I wanted to say. I am ready to take questions.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Madam Speaker, I represent a riding that has a huge cattle industry and a large hog industry. U.S. protectionism has definitely hurt our industries. One of the largest employers in my riding is Gerdau Ameristeel with over 700 staff. There is a number of other steel companies besides Gerdau Ameristeel in my riding around Selkirk area. This whole debate about what is happening with the Americans and their whole protectionist attitude is very disconcerting to the people in my riding.

It is great to hear the dogma coming from the New Democratic Party saying that it is okay to have protectionism, but they do not realize that this type of mentality, the isolationist theories that have been floating around since the dirty thirties, actually exacerbated the problem in the United States during that time and forced the entire world into a global recession. We do not need to turn back the page and go down that path.

The hon. member talked about the concerns of the cattle industry and we know what happened with the R-CALF group. It was the Conservative Party that stood up and made sure that we were represented at the hearings. The member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound and I were at the judicial hearings as well as the court proceedings and appeals in Seattle, Portland, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota to ensure that the Canadian position was represented well since we were not seeing it from the other parties. This was back when we were still in opposition, never mind now that we are in government, and we were standing up for Canadian producers.

Agriculture is really dependent upon trade. We have to have trade rules. NAFTA, WTO, those things are important. Over 80% of our producers are dependent upon strong agriculture trade around the world.

We look at the philosophy that buy American is okay, and if that is the NDP's philosophy, then the NDP must be saying that COOL, country of original labelling, is okay, because that is buy American policy that the American government is forcing upon Canadian producers. That has caused a real injury to cattle and hog producers. We are seeing prices plummet. It is a sad day when the NDP stand up in the House and say that it wants to have a buy American policy so that it can continue to force injury on Canadian producers. Shame on the NDP.

[Alex Atamanenko, NDP, British Columbia Southern Interior, BC]

Madam Speaker, what a bunch of garbage from my former colleague on the agriculture committee. That is partisan rhetoric.

As far as what happened in the depression, we should study history and look at the fact that it was a lack of infrastructure and other factors. In regard to COOL, country of original labelling, of course I agree with the hon. member that we have to fight this and we will be doing so on the agriculture committee.

There is a difference between encouraging a policy to buy Canadian and supporting a buy American policy. It is not the same thing. We can encourage a Canadian policy and have fair trade with our neighbours. There is nothing wrong with that. It happens back and forth and we have done it and we will continue to do so in this country.

This knee-jerk reaction and the comment about dogma do not make any sense. We can still be nationalists. We can still want the best for our country and try to encourage more jobs in Canada without completely opening up our borders and letting those corporations take over, which they are doing. I have pointed it out in agriculture and we know it is happening in other industries, that if we let them take over completely, eventually we will have no control.

There has to be a fine line drawn and surely it has to be based on what is in the best interests of Canadians.