Debates of Feb. 5th, 2009

Opposition Motion—Canada-U.S. Relations

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I noticed that my friend spent most of his time criticizing our government. While he grudgingly admitted that our government was acting on the file, the best he could do to complain was to say that it was not acting quickly enough.

What he does not mention is that the Prime Minister has been personally involved in this issue, because of its critical nature to Canada. What he does not mention is that our Minister of International Trade was in Davos, discussing this with various trade commissioners from around the world. What he does not mention is that there is significant action happening within Congress to try to stall and stop this protectionist measure. He does not mention the fact that the President has stated publicly that he opposes these protectionist measures. He also does not state that the American senate will still have to act on this and that the President, in fact, may have a veto on this.

Could the member tell me what he personally has done to bring this issue to the attention of the American authorities?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. The Canadian government and the Prime Minister did not act soon enough. I do not understand why it took weeks for the Embassy of Canada in the United States to forward information about the protectionist measures in Obama's recovery plan, in particular the bill being examined by the House of Representatives.

Action was taken after the House of Representatives passed the bill. Once again, it is not an easy thing to do. I am not saying that it is. They could also have mobilized parliamentarians from this House. I remember quite well that, for certain matters, a delegation of our parliamentarians met with their American counterparts to try to explain our point of view.

At present, given what is at stake in this matter, not enough pressure is being applied. I am not saying that nothing is being done, but a great deal more pressure should be applied and there should be better coordination of all countries, parliamentarians, the government and the Prime Minister to achieve our objective. As we saw with softwood lumber, protectionist sentiments still run high in the United States, even in a period of economic growth.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

I am very pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this very important debate on the motion that was put forward by my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, the official opposition critic for international trade. In case there is someone who does not know exactly what the motion is, I would like to read it:

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

It is hard to imagine that the U.S. would violate those agreements. We are certainly hoping the Americans are not going to do that, but it is important that the appropriate pressure be put on them to make sure they understand the implications.

Through this motion the opposition seeks to hold the government accountable for what we see as its failure to secure our relationship with our most important trading partner, the United States, on a better footing than it is today.

Just as the Conservative government dropped the ball when it came to addressing the state of our economy, we feel it has not played an active enough role in shaping decisions with our trading partners.

The Conservative government has let the Canada-U.S. trade relationship deteriorate, allowing major U.S. legislation to threaten key Canadian industries and jobs. The government's mishandling of the financial crisis and its delay in bringing forward a stimulus package has meant that Canada missed out on the opportunity to coordinate our response to the economic crisis with that of our largest trading partner. This failure has us scrambling to reach U.S. legislators now and to try to overturn existing legislation when we should have been promoting Canada's interest and leading the development of Canada-U.S. trade policy.

Behind every international trade statistic are relationships. Clearly, the Government of Canada and all parliamentarians have been working on building those relationships through a variety of different sources, including our Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group.

It should come as no surprise that the U.S. Congress leans toward putting up barriers to trade in a time of economic crisis. The Conservative government continues to be caught off guard by U.S. legislators reacting to the U.S. agenda rather than advancing our own.

The total absence of a considered strategic approach to Canada-U.S. relations has helped to bring us to the brink of this trade issue, and will continue to hinder the Conservative government's ability to hold sway on other matters of critical importance, such as border security, climate change, the auto sector and the list goes on.

I welcomed last night's agreement by U.S. senators to change the protectionist provision inserted into the U.S. government's economic stimulus bill with the addition of a crucial clause that the bill be applied in a manner consistent with U.S. obligations under international agreements.

On the surface it certainly makes us feel better that the Americans have recognized the issue. I am pleased that the Americans have recognized that they should not enact laws that contravene their commitments to liberalized trading regimes under WTO and the North American free trade agreement, but we are not out of the water yet. Very quickly after the announcement of that motion, some experts relayed concerns that cities and states could be exempt from these restrictions, and it could still hurt both of our ailing economies.

Canadians can rest assured that we will monitor the situation very carefully and make sure that the Conservatives keep up the pressure on the United States. That is why it is so important for us to maintain a positive relationship with our largest trading partner. A strained relationship with the United States surely led to this major worry that such restrictions would spark a trade war and exasperate the economic downturn.

We have a special relationship with the United States, a unique partnership with a long and colourful history where we always try to be respectful of distinct jurisdictions, principles and values.

I have had the privilege of serving as a vice-chair of the Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group and I know the challenges that our countries face. We have had many meetings with congressmen, senators and representatives on the issues that bring us together as well as the issues that have given us huge problems, such as the border. On many of those issues we have been able to work them out through our relationship.

It is the Prime Minister's job to make our trade relationship with the United States a priority. I feel he has failed to do this to date.

The Liberal government had a strong record of cooperation with the United States. I would like to remind members and inform new members that former prime minister Paul Martin was so concerned about the relationship between Canada and the United States that he had a parliamentary secretary dedicated strictly to Canada-U.S. relations. In fact, it was the very member for Kings—Hants whose motion we are debating today. It was a huge help to the government at that time, and it might be a great opportunity for the current government to look at that very issue of having a parliamentary secretary working on those relationships.

The Conservatives have failed Canadians before through their misguided actions with regard to trade. Think of the softwood lumber fiasco, for example. Members will remember that the proposal put forward by the Conservative government abandoned Canada's position. It was pursued by successive Canadian governments and upheld by trade panels at both NAFTA and the WTO that our softwood industry is not subsidized.

Putting that aside, it is imperative that we work together to protect the jobs in both countries. We have so many industries that are intertwined, such as our auto industry, our steel industry, and too many more to list. Preventing trade would clearly be contrary to the North American free trade agreement.

I am pleased to hear that the Bloc understands the issues and will be supporting the motion. I hope that the NDP will realize the outdated ideology it is functioning under and support this motion as well. It would be very important for the U.S. government to see that this motion has unanimous support and that we are all very concerned and want to work with the U.S. to solve these issues.

For example, the exclusion of non-U.S. steel would violate NAFTA which lowered trade barriers among the U.S., Canada and Mexico.

The Conservative government must end its politics of division and look to the Liberals and other parties in the House for a good example of how we can work together with our southern neighbours on important issues. We just heard the government whip make some great comments about parliamentarians working together and respecting each other, and I hope that will continue, especially through difficult times.

There is a unique relationship between Canada and the United States. We all need to work to ensure that this important relationship continues to be shaped by our strong friendship and mutual respect.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Oak Ridges—Markham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. She spoke about the relationship the previous government had with the Americans. I certainly was not elected to this House at that time, but I do remember a time when our trading relations consisted of stomping on a doll of the American president. I remember a time when the hon. member campaigned against free trade. I am extraordinarily delighted now to see that the member and other members of the Liberal Party have come around and also believe that free trade is in the best interests of this country.

However, she failed to mention all of the hard work that is being done by our Prime Minister, the Minister of International Trade and our ambassador in Washington to make sure that Canadian interests are being expressed and protected in Washington.

I wonder if she might comment on when it was that she came around to the idea that free trade was good for Canada and that the best way to create and protect jobs is to actually improve access to markets.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that it was a Conservative government that came to understand the importance and value of free trade.

However, let me say very clearly it is important that as the United States is our largest trading partner, we need to be working together to make sure that we are creating jobs for Canadians and that we are doing it in the North American context. If we look at the auto industry, it is not a single industry for the United States or for us; it is an industry that is very much integrated.

It is up to us to be that strong voice. That is the issue. We cannot lie back and wait for someone else to improve these relationships. It is imperative that all of us as parliamentarians do that. I am pleased to hear that the Prime Minister called the President of Mexico yesterday. At this point we need a very aggressive approach by all the ministers and all of us who have contacts and relationships that have been built over the years with various members through the Canada-U.S. Inter-Parliamentary Group or elsewhere so that we can get our point across to them.

When people become frightened it is very easy for them to withdraw and say that they are going to block out everyone. That is going to hurt everyone in the world, not just the United States. I would hope that the Americans would see the light of day as people have seen the light of day on many different issues and that we would move forward.

[Stephen Woodworth, Conservative, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciated my friend's comments about the importance of working together in the House. I think she is dead-on. Our Prime Minister has taken the very same approach. My comments are not meant to reflect on that at all. I am going to give my friend the benefit of two questions and she can choose to answer one or both of them.

First, I was intrigued by the member's observation about the outdated ideology of the NDP. Somewhat like the previous questioner, I wonder when my friend came to that conclusion, whether it was before or after she signed the famous memorandum regarding the coalition and whether she could possibly find herself in a government which was in coalition with that kind of ideology.

Second, and more to the point of this debate, does my friend acknowledge that the President of the United States would not have had this issue come front and centre to his radar without the very strong representation from our government in Washington?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, having been in government previously, I know that when our ears are to the ground we know what is coming and we do not wait until all of a sudden it shows up in the media to say that my goodness, we have a problem. Granted, these are unique times and the U.S. is acting out of fear and so on, but part of the Conservative government's role more so than anyone else's is to make sure its ears are to the ground.

In respect to the so-called coalition issue, there was no discussion about anyone who was going to violate the NAFTA agreement or any other agreement. Critically those are important, and a country does not move forward by violating agreements that were duly signed and have clearly been of benefit to Canadians and to Canada.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Kings—Hants. At the heart of the motion is the fact that, under the Conservative government, a long-standing relationship with the United States has been deteriorating, not just slowly but rapidly deteriorating.

We are a trading nation. Canada depends for 45% of its gross domestic product on trade, 80% of that trade is carried out with the United States, our neighbour to the south. That country has been our ally. We have disagreed, but we have always had a strong relationship. By a strong relationship, I do not mean that we stand there and pound our fists. I mean it is a relationship based on mutual respect.

To create a relationship, we need to have ongoing and open lines of communication. We have to keep the relationship going. We have to continue talking. We have to continue building on the things that we share and stand firm on the things that we do not share.

That was the nature of the relationship, at least under the Liberal government, for 13 years before the Conservative government came into power. The problem is that relationship no longer exists.

The current relationship between Canada and the United States is typified by two descriptors: one is fawning or subservient and the other is reactive. The government either reacts to something that it obviously is not aware is coming down the pipe, or it bows its head and meekly does what it is told to do, at times when it needs to, and I will elaborate on these a little later.

However, I want to talk a little about the fact that the reactivity is what is of great concern to us. If we have open lines of communication and if we maintain a strong relationship, we are friends. We talk to each other. We do not necessarily agree, but at least we know what is coming down the pipe. Even if we were not forewarned in certain conversations that we kept between us as two sovereign nations, one should just look at history and tradition.

During the Great Depression, and in the dirty thirties as it was called, we saw how the United States reacted at that time to a depression. It began to be protectionist. This is the nature of any country, when it is faced with stress, to behave in certain patterns. We should have known those patterns. The reaction to stress by the United States is to immediately crawl in and become protectionist. Therefore, we should have seen it coming down the pipe for two reasons: first, because of tradition and history under stress; and second, because we also had lines of communication open.

Therefore, the government has a failing mark on both of those, on reading the history or on being able to have open lines of communication. Now what we have is reactivity.

Thank goodness for a new president whose administration is one that has decided that it would rather make friends and do the right thing, rather than continue to be strong and pound the table along with other people. We have seen this happen.

President Obama said that he did not want to harm trade relationships with the world. Worldwide trade relationships will be harmed if the Americans resort to protectionism. We saw that happen after the Great Depression when the world trading relationships began to fall apart after the protectionism by the United States.

Here we have something that we could have headed off at the pass without needing to have the President of the United States to turn around and say, “Oops, I'm sorry”. We could have headed that off. In good relationships we do not paint our friends in a corner and have them having to bow out and say, “I'm sorry, I didn't think about that earlier on”.

However, what does it say, when we, as the nearest neighbour, supposedly a country with strong relationships, allies sharing the longest unprotected border in the world, did not know that we were on the agenda. It means we are not even on the radar with the United States. We used to be on the radar. A good example was when President Clinton came to visit. He came to the House. He spoke to the House. He spoke to the senate. We welcomed him.

President Bush came here. He also came and spoke to everyone and was welcomed. We differ on certain occasions, but we maintain that friendship and the ability to lobby and to talk to each other.

It is not by chance that members of Parliament are able to use their flying points to go to Washington, D.C. because we must continue to keep those lines open.

The government has failed on that. The lines are closed. No one knows what is happening. The result, as we have seen with the recession, was too little too late. The government pretends things are not happening. It is always in denial. When things fall apart at the seams, government members suddenly leap into the air yelling and screaming and wonder what to do next. That is the pattern of the Conservative government. We should not have been surprised that this occurred.

I want to also talk about the other part of the relationship which we seem to have developed with the United States. It is not one of a strong partner with mutual respect for each other. It is a subservient kind of relationship, and I go back to the softwood lumber deal because it is something that we must bring to the table as an example of how we are either reactive or subservient.

The relationship between the two countries has always been based on mutual respect and a strong sense that we understood each other. Canada would do what it thought was best and the United States would do what it thought was best, but we totally respected each other. That is gone.

The Liberals made a strong deal with the United States when we negotiated an agreement on softwood lumber. The Conservative government came into power and agreed to a deal that left $1 billion, on the table, money that the Liberal government had negotiated, to go back to the U.S. The Conservatives also made an agreement that increased the tariffs under certain conditions. It was a bad deal.

A legal analysis commissioned by the Free Trade Lumber Council and two Ontario associations had this to say, “We are sharply critical of the April 27th package which is a political bargain forsaking entirely the rule of law enshrined in the North American free trade agreement. It was something that was a political deal brokered between the administration of [the Prime Minister] and George Bush”.

Political deals were made that were not in the best interests of Canada at all. We lost a great deal at the table.

Here is what we also heard from people in the mill industry in British Columbia:

They had phone calls at the mill level from Conservative MPs and they were told very clearly, “If you don't support this, don't count on the federal government for helping you with your difficulties later on”.

We had a political deal based on subservience, brokered just to allow for good relationships to continue.

I used to be a negotiator for doctors in the province of British Columbia. One cannot negotiate from a position of weakness, but must negotiate from a position of strength. There has to be mutual respect at the table if a deal is going to be brokered that is a win-win situation on both sides.

Now we see a new administration in the United States, an administration that seems to be a polar opposite to the current Conservative government. It is sad because there seems to be little in common.

The President of the United States believes in science. He listens to what others tell him. He is not ideological. He is bringing back things like stem cell research and talking about funding groups that are non-advocates and do not necessarily agree with him, but funding them nonetheless. He is going back to dealing with things based on knowledge and information and outcomes and what works. The Conservative government is based on ideology and ideology alone.

I worry for our future relationship with the United States. I worry that this deteriorating relationship is going to slide downhill very rapidly when the intelligent and modern day thinking President of the United States listens to what we have here, which is a retrogressive, ideological government. He can find nothing in common with us.

I hope for the sake of Canadians and all our industries that this never happens.

[Rick Norlock, Conservative, Northumberland—Quinte West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member as she reinvented history. It seems to me the member should recall that in 1988 the Liberal Party was against the free trade agreement, which we were attempting to negotiate with the United States of America.

She seems to forget that in 1993, one of the platforms she stood on to defeat a former prime minister of our country was her negative attitude toward NAFTA, the fact that we should not negotiate NAFTA. She was against the free trade deal.

When she talks about ideology and how that affects a relationship, she needs to realize that the Prime Minister of Canada has had a very good relationship with the newly elected President of the United States, the kind of relationship that is bound to produce a very good relationship, or with the previous president of the United States. It does not matter who it is.

When she tries to reinvent history, why can she not just be upfront with us and tell us why she was against free trade then and now is in favour of it?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me why I personally was against free trade. I never was. I have absolutely no idea where the member got this idea.

In fact, it was the result of a former Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, having read the Liberal MacDonald report advocating free trade, that he decided to like free trade. Before that he was opposed to it.

This idea that because some individual Liberals were opposed to free trade all Liberals were opposed to free trade is absolutely ridiculous. Some of the best negotiations on the free trade agreement came in under Liberal governments, so this is ludicrous.

I was referring to the softwood lumber deal. A report and an analysis done by the Free Trade Lumber Council stated said that the softwood lumber deal was a political deal and was not in the best interests of Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member spoke about relationships, and I have two questions.

First, does she believe the focus of the current Conservative government over the last three years, almost exclusively on relationships with the Bush Republicans, has jeopardized our capacity now to build relationships with the Democrats? There has not been a lot of engagement with the Democrats and they now control both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Second, does she believe that the relationships the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada has with people like Larry Summers, who is now the top economic adviser to President Obama, or Samantha Power, one of the top foreign policy advisers to President Obama, or Cass Sunstein, who is the regulatory czar in the new Obama administration, those deep personal and professional relationships between the leader of the Liberal Party and the Obama administration, stand to strengthen Canada's capacity to negotiate to defend Canadian interests?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the last part of the hon. member's statement answered the question entirely.

When we want to build relationships, it is not only with a nebulous nation state, it is not only with a broad Congress and a broad Senate, it is also between two leaders who share a common set of values. We know very clearly that the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada shares strong values and strong intellectual relationships and history with these very important advisers to the new President of the United States.

It is about whether we see things in the same way. The new Democratic President of the United States, President Obama, has a view of the world, a view of his nation's state in the world, that is very similar to the Liberal view of how things should happen, where we should go and what we should do. It is not an ideological view.

This is a man who listens to what the results tell, who believes in science. The Conservative government, we know, has been absolutely ideological about all of its scientific decisions. I can only point to the safe injection site in Vancouver, as my example.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Trois-Rivières, the 375th Anniversary of Trois-Rivières.

Question Period

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding very blatant misinformation that was given during question period. I was so thunderstruck that I had to go back and check the blues.

The member for Newmarket—Aurora asked the minister a set-up question about the new policy for poultry inspection. The minister answered that this was a pilot project developed by the Liberals in 2004.

I have checked the evidence an that answer is false. The pilot inspection project is one of the projects that is being challenged by veterinarians with CFIA right now and it came into place in 2007.

I am raising a point of order today so that the minister has the opportunity to clear the record and this blatant misinformation is not allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Is the member for Wetaskiwin rising on the same point of order?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Malpeque is an experienced member and he would know what a matter of debate is. I would encourage you, Mr. Speaker, to disregard the member's point of order and just consider it as a matter of debate.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I am not sure that was a point of order but I would like to go back to resuming debate, the hon. member for Calgary Centre.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion--Canada-United States Relations

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak in that it is my first opportunity to congratulate you on your appointment as Deputy Speaker.

I am pleased to respond to the opposition motion today on the growing protectionism in the United States, proposed by the hon. member for Kings—Hants, my good friend who shares with me a role on the House of Commons international trade committee.

This is a worthy motion that, I think, expresses the concerns of many Canadians and it is a concern that many of us share. The hon. members of the New Democratic Party, on the other hand, want to know why the government will not put in place a buy Canadian act in response to the proposed buy American provisions in the U.S. stimulus package. The short answer is that kind of knee-jerk response would be profoundly counterproductive.

Canada prospers as one of the greatest trade and market economies in the world. If we have one of the highest standards in the world, and I believe we have, it is precisely because we have such fierce and successful proponents of market liberalization, the very opposite of protectionism.

Last year our Conservative government signed free trade agreements with the European Free Trade Association, our first in nearly a decade, and agreements with Peru and Colombia. We are in talks with Panama, Jordan, India and the European Union to do more of the same.

In his keynote address at the November 2008 APEC CEO summit in Lima, Peru, the Prime Minister talked about the damaging role played by protectionism in creating the Great Depression. He said that the Great Depression “was not caused by a stock market crash”. The crash, he went on to say, “was only the beginning”. He said that the real nail in the coffin, what transformed a nascent recession into a full-fledged, decade-long depression, were a handful of actions taken by governments, the most egregious of which was the erecting of “protectionist barriers in a short-sighted attempt to preserve jobs”.

Speaking to an audience of presidents and prime ministers from APEC countries, our Prime Minister said, “These are mistakes the Government of Canada will not make”.

This government's insistence on not building walls and not closing doors is not just about keeping a promise the Prime Minister made at an APEC leaders summit. It is about standing up for what Canadians believe in, even when the principle, that ideal, is put to its ultimate test.

Refusing to retaliate with a destructive NDP proposal is not just about our blind adherence to free market ideology. When it comes to Canada's support of free trade and open economies and markets, our view is based on the success of our North American economic partnership.

We took a close look at a trusting relationship with the United States and transformed it into the most successful commercial partnership in the world. We later parlayed that successful formula into the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the success of NAFTA has exceeded all expectations. In the last 15 years, trade with North America has tripled to nearly $1 trillion and nearly 40 million jobs have been created.

Let us not forget that, notwithstanding our current difficulties, the prosperity generated around the world in the last half century has been unprecedented in history. It has been precisely the dismantling of protectionist barriers and the easing of trade restrictions that has ushered in this extraordinary era.

Tempting as it may be in these times of economic instability to barricade the border and prevent commerce, such a move would be profoundly misguided. It is now the time for opening, not erecting walls.

The $825 billion economic stimulus package currently being debated in the United States Senate is a historic effort by the United States government to stimulate the U.S. economy by earmarking money for roads, bridges, waterways and other badly needed projects. The version of the American recovery and reinvestment act passed by the House of Representatives contains provisions that expand on buy American and buy American requirements which would restrict foreign, including Canadian, access to these important projects.

It is important to note, however, that although the American house has passed a version of the bill, the senate has only begun its consideration of its version of the bill and associated amendments, and this work will be in progress for several more days.

I was encouraged last night to see an amendment proposed in Washington that would cause the new legislation to be “consistent with the United States obligations under international agreements”.

Once the Senate has passed its version of the bill, the two bills will proceed to a conference process where the language will be discussed and modified until a single bill is agreed upon. This consolidated bill in the United States Congress will then be voted on by both chambers and, when passed, the consensus version of the bill proceeds to the president for his signature.

The stimulus package is, as yet, only in the middle stages of this process and we expect that the legislation will undergo additional revision before it is passed into law.

This government is concerned about the possible effects such protectionist measures could have on Canadian industries. That is why we are working with our friends and allies both in the United States and in other countries to ensure we continue to enjoy prosperous trading relationships. Canadian ministers and officials at all levels are engaged with their U.S. counterparts on this matter.

Ministers of our government, as well as Canada's ambassador to the United States, have expressed Canada's concerns to the new administration, the legislatures on Capitol Hill and other U.S. stakeholders. They have emphasized the need for a coordinated approach to stimulate the North American and global economies and, in particular, the importance of avoiding protectionist measures that could exacerbate the global economic crisis.

We know our U.S. partners want the same outcome for their citizens as we do, as do all countries with whom we trade. Canada is fortunate at this critical time to be represented by Ambassador Michael Wilson in Washington. Mr. Wilson is highly regarded in Washington, respected, experienced and connected. It was a privilege to be with the then finance minister Wilson when the free trade agreement was established between Canada and the United States. I know that Ambassador Wilson is fully seasoned in these matters and the fine points of this trade agreement and he is knowledgeable in diplomacy.

We are encouraged by his efforts and the efforts of our ministers in this dialogue and the results they seem to be producing. President Obama has publicly expressed his desire to avoid passing legislation that would result in a trade war. As I mentioned, just last night the U.S. Senate approved an amendment requiring that the bill respect the United States' international trade commitments.

new We agree with President Obama's conclusion that protectionist measures risk triggering a trade war that is in no country's interest.

The Minister of International Trade stated in Parliament that the U.S. and Canada, as G20 and NAFTA partners, have committed themselves to keeping their borders open to trade, including for projects covered under the economic stimulus. We are in a collective effort to restore and stabilize our economies. This government is continuing to remind our U.S. friends that our collective objective of combatting the global economic crisis must prevail over the pressures of protectionism.

Canada is not alone in its unease about these provisions and is joining others in raising concerns about retrenching behind market access barriers. In the United States, major stakeholders, including leading U.S. associations and U.S. industry leaders, have also expressed serious reservations about the inclusion of expanded buy American provisions and will continue to argue for open markets.

We are fortunate to have the United States as our closest friend and ally. The arrival of a new administration signals a fresh chapter in Canada-U.S. relations and we are beginning that chapter with vigorous, constructive exchanges with our U.S. partners to combat this downturn together.

With the Unites States administration just sworn into office, we are renewing our long-standing relationship with the United States. In doing so, Canada and the United States have the great advantage of building on a strong, historic partnership. One need only look to our long cooperation in the World Trade Organization to illustrate this point.

Canada and the United States were two of the original signatories to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, GATT, the predecessor to the World Trade Organization.

More than 60 years ago, in 1947, Canada and the United States supported and signed on to this fledgling body, which ultimately went on to lay the foundations to the rules which, to this day, govern much of the international trade and commerce in the world. In 1994, in response to a Canadian-led initiative, the GATT became the Word Trade Organization, the WTO.

At the heart of the World Trade Organization are various WTO agreements, negotiated and signed by 153 of the world's trading nations. These documents provide the legal groundwork for international commerce. They are essentially contracts binding governments to keep their trade policies within agreed limits.

Although negotiated and signed by governments, the goal is to help producers of goods and services, exporters and importers, to conduct their business while allowing governments to meet social and environmental objectives.

Canada and the United States are committed to the multilateral trading system, and are engaged in the WTO's current Doha development agenda, the Doha round, as it is more commonly known.

A well-functioning, rules-based trading system is in the interest of all trading nations, including Canada. Rules are essential to help us in our goal of securing access to foreign markets for our exporters and our service providers.

We also keep our own market open in order to have access to imports, thereby allowing our producers and consumers a greater variety of goods and services to choose from.

The recent financial crisis, which began in one part of the world, has spread worldwide to truly become an economic crisis, some observers even compare it to the Great Depression of the 1930s. An unfortunate byproduct of these times of economic stress is that countries may fall prey to the temptation of protectionist tendencies. During this time of global uncertainty, it is of the utmost importance that we resist the protectionist pressures that may accompany economic uncertainty.

Canada stands firm in the belief that the road toward greater economic growth and security is through maintaining open markets. That is why at the G20 meeting in Washington last November, Canada demonstrated tremendous leadership.

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

We succeeded in our efforts at the G20 meeting. Let me quote from the G20 leaders statement:

We underscore the critical importance of rejecting protectionism and not turning inward in times of financial uncertainty. In this regard, within the next 12 months, we will refrain from raising new barriers to investment or to trade in goods and services, imposing new export restrictions, or implementing World Trade Organization (WTO) inconsistent measures to stimulate exports.

We have worked closely and effectively with the United States over many years in the G20, WTO, NAFTA and elsewhere. If we value our friendship with the United States, and we certainly do, then we must do what only friends can do, and that is to stick by our principles and urge our friends to stick by theirs.

President Obama has signalled his administration's desire to re-engage heartily with the rest of the world. Provisions in the current version of the American recovery and reinvestment act, making its way through the senate, may threaten to undermine that goal.

Some members have suggested that the government adopt a “if you can't beat them, join them” approach, but that is not what friends do. We must keep up the pressure, and we will, to encourage the United States to take the right road because it is actually the only road that will lead us toward economic recovery.

[Maxime Bernier, Conservative, Beauce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my hon. colleague from Calgary Centre on his speech here in the House today.

Free trade is very important and I have a specific question for my colleague. For both countries, free trade allows businesses to sell their goods and allows buyers to purchase the goods they want, without governmental interference.

I would like to ask the member a question about the steel industry.

What will be the effect of American protectionism in the steel industry? I think the member has a good answer for us and I will be pleased to hear it.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his efforts, both as an industry minister and a foreign minister, to assist and promote the interests of Canadians at international levels. A remarkable job that we are all very proud of.

With regard to the question of steel, because it is one that has come up and a number of our members are affected, we have a number of concerns regarding the American position on protectionism and steel. Canada is a trading nation and we are prosperous because the goods and services that Canadians produce and export around the world bring benefits to Canada as well as to other countries. When those open markets are threatened this is a concern to all Canadians.

On the specific issue of the iron and steel sector, we know that the North American steel industry is very closely integrated. Steel shipments between Canada and the United States are almost of equal value. Steel companies have highly specialized factories on both sides of the border designed to produce specific steel products. Fabricated and semi-processed products move both south and north across the border to be processed or sold as finished goods.

Therefore, threats to existing market access in the sector would disrupt and not enhance the effect of an efficient use of manufacturing resources and the highly skilled labour in North America.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member is chair of the committee on international trade and we have heard a lot today about the importance of engaging legislators in the U.S., not simply focusing on the administration or on the White House but focusing on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and working the legislators because they are so powerful. There are 435 congressmen and 100 senators, and when we look at trade and protectionist policies that can have such an effect on Canada and our economy. We really ought to deepen those relationships.

As chair of the Standing Committee on International Trade, would the member agree that the committee ought to go to Washington very soon and have very structured meetings with as many legislators as we can, legislators particularly in the trade committee and appropriations committee, and some of the other key committees to make the case that Canada-U.S. trade is actually really good for the American economy. There are seven million American jobs created by the Canada-U.S. trade relationship. We ought to be making that case, not just during a crisis, but as we move forward we should be making that case fervently and building those relationships.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants who is, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the international trade critic for the Liberal Party. It is clear that the government is watching the U.S. legislative process very carefully. Our ministers and officials are fully engaged in reminding our American friends of the integrated nature of our economies and our mutual interest in avoiding protectionist measures.

This is an excellent suggestion. With a new Parliament we have just reconvened committees, but it is an excellent opportunity for individual members, for committee members, particularly those experienced in international trade matters, to converse and to meet with their American counterparts. This is an issue that is wide open in the United States. There are those who remember the Great Depression, and the impact and effect that protectionist measures had on the economy of the United States at that time. We should learn from experience. We could also learn from the experiences of various members, particularly on the international trade committee. It is a welcome suggestion and one we should pursue in committee.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, we support this motion, and why would we not? It is what we have been doing all along. I would like to make a couple of observations and solicit my colleague's comments on them.

As I said, we have been doing what the motion suggests all along, long before the Liberals brought it up in the House. What is troubling to me is the political convenience, and that is all it is, of misleading statements being made by members on the other side on their imaginary issue that we have been doing nothing. These statements are misleading the House and misleading Canadians. We have been doing an awful lot and my colleague brought it up in his speech.

We have had a strong relationship with the United States for many years and that will continue regardless of who is in the White House, and regardless of political stripe. That has not changed and it is not going to change. The political convenience of those comments is very misleading.

Earlier, the government House leader mentioned how we need to try to do a better job with respect to cooperation in the House and so on, and we are. Then we hear comments from the member for Vancouver Centre, which frankly are just tiresome twaddle and partisan prattle. It does not serve the purpose of cooperation in the House and does not serve the purpose of taking a worthy motion, and moving it forward like we should be doing.

[Lee Richardson, Conservative, Calgary Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the learned comments of my colleague from Edmonton Centre. I do not pay much attention to prattle. I look to the substance instead and we have fortunately seen some substance from the opposition benches on this issue. We share mutual concerns in this regard.

I welcome the opposition motion today because it gives us the opportunity to express our concern about the potential of American protectionism. Naturally we are going to have some who will take a partisan political advantage but that is all part of politics. It is good that we have people like the hon. member to keep them on their toes.