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.