Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak in favour of the opposition motion on the softwood lumber agreement, and more generally on Canada-U.S. relations. I want to congratulate my friend the international trade critic for bringing the motion forward. He is a former agriculture minister as well, someone who certainly knows the intricacies and complexity of the issue.
I want to start my remarks today by setting the stage about Canada-U.S. relations and then I will move specifically to the motion and softwood lumber within that.
Canada and the U.S. have an important and strategic military, political, and economic relationship. On the economic side, the Canada-U.S. trade relationship is the largest trading relationship in the world. In terms of economic volume, economic value, it is the largest trading relationship between nations in human history. Our trading relationship is facilitated by our shared democratic values and, obviously, a shared desire for prosperity and for working together to achieve that end.
While there is a lot there in terms of our shared values, there are substantial differences between the way our political systems work. The way in which we have to engage each other should reflect an understanding and appreciation of those differences.
Canada as far as democracies go is a relatively centralized system within each level of government. We have a federal system, and provincial governments where a lot of power is exercised as well. With respect to the process of international deal-making, the federal government has the power to negotiate, to sign, and to ratify agreements, but it needs to engage the provinces on certain details that may touch on their jurisdiction. Effectively, our Constitution gives that power to the federal government. Unlike perhaps in the United States and other countries, if Canada signs a deal and the government is in favour of the deal, there is rarely any doubt, at least in a majority Parliament, about the deal not being ratified.
When we in Canada look at the situation in the United States, we can make the mistake of assuming that its system works exactly the same way, that the president is the only decision-maker involved. We know that the American system is very different and, therefore, to protect and advance Canada's economic interests, we really have to be engaged at all levels. We have to be engaged in a much wider and deeper way with the United States, not just with the president's administration.
We saw that under the previous government. We saw a real appreciation of the need for a depth of engagement that went not only across parties but also across individuals. We had a prime minister and ministers who were engaged in those relationships. Former MP Rob Merrifield worked as a legislative liaison person. He built relationships directly with legislators. We saw from that kind of negotiations and the kind of success we achieved generally that this approach paid substantial dividends. One example is country of origin labelling, which was basically at the finish line at the time of the last election. We achieved that success by working legislator by legislator, vote by vote, to build a consensus and the support we needed to advance Canada's position. That was an important part of the approach we took.
In addition to talking to legislators, especially in the context of the United States, we also have to be engaged in public discussion. We need leaders in this country who are prepared to speak to the broader global discussion, the public discussion, about the importance of trade, leaders who are willing to make public arguments in favour of the open economy.
We have heard the Prime Minister talk publicly at the United Nations and elsewhere about the success of Canadian pluralism, and I certainly applaud that. However, just as we agree with the principle of social and cultural openness, the open economy has been the foundation of our success. We need to be willing to speak in the international debate around that. We can speak about the benefits of international trade.
We see in the United States that the basic understanding of the value of the open economy is now up for debate. It is being attacked by people on different sides of the political spectrum. On the Republican side, a party historically in favour of free trade, the nominee is advocating tearing up most of the major trade deals already in place, but within the Democratic party on the other side there is some strong criticism of trade as well. We see this emerging anti-trade discourse and it is important that we have leadership in Canada that is prepared to talk about the value that trade has produced for both countries.
We are speaking today about a specific trade issue that is happening in a context in which American elites are questioning the broader value of trade. I think many of the elites understand the arguments in favour of trade at a deeper level, but they are being pushed and pulled away from these kinds of common-sense positions by certain political forces.
If we believe in the value of trade, one of those core principles of political discourse is that we cannot win an argument if we are not prepared to make it. Unfortunately, right now we do not have a Prime Minister who is prepared to stand up and make the arguments for the open economy. Whether it is being bold on the trans-Pacific partnership, actively prioritizing and addressing the softwood lumber issue, or talking about the larger benefits of trade in our relationship, it is a missed opportunity that we do not see this happening in the way and the degree to which it should.
Let us remember that, despite what we are hearing in the political discussion in the United States, all of the opinion data that I have seen suggests that many Americans at the ground level really understand and appreciate the value of the trading relationship. That is something that we can tap into. I have quoted these numbers in the House before. However, a recent Gallup poll found that only 33% of Americans view trade as a threat, down from a peak of 52% in 2008. That is a historic low in terms of Americans seeing the trade deal as a threat.
In general, the government's approach to the Canada-U.S. economic relationship has created some significant problems because the government has been unwilling to make those arguments for the open economy. We know where we stand. We know where the NDP stands. The government kind of blows in the wind when it comes to trade, but it has not been clear in terms of making these strong arguments.
We hear a lot of talk, especially on this issue. In this place, the Prime Minister used the word “bromance” and “dudeplomacy” when he was talking about the relationship with the United States, yet we do not see the use of that supposed relationship in advancing Canada's national interests. We should be using whatever cache we have there to advance the open economy and Canada's interests. Unfortunately, all of the evidence seems to suggest that this bromance is a bit one-sided and that the dudeplomacy is not happening and is not moving the results forward.
In the midst of this relationship, the Americans have not been shy about pushing forward their interests. The President spoke in this place about suggesting that Canada spend more on its military and that we support the trans-Pacific partnership, things that incidentally would probably be in Canada's interests as well. Therefore, it is important that we take advantage of the opportunity as well to advance our own interests in this relationship, that we are talking at a multi-dimensional level, that we are engaged with different levels, and that when the Prime Minister goes to Washington he brings the relevant ministers, such as the natural resource minister, not prioritizing the personal and glitzy parts of it but working to achieve results. If we had an emphasis on results, we would be further ahead on the softwood lumber deal.
Many of my colleagues have spoken specifically about the importance of the softwood lumber industry. Canada's largest export market for softwood lumber is the United States, as 96% of all softwood lumber imports into the United States come from Canada. Therefore, it is a relationship that is important to Canada as well as the United States and it needs to be a focus. Rather than focus on the optics and the media spectacle parts of the relationship, we need the government to dig in deep and say that it is not just about one person, it is not just about photos and about the public niceties, but that it is about how we advance Canada's national interest.
If we look at the absence of the mention of softwood lumber in the Liberal platform, in the throne speech, and in the mandate letter for the minister, this is reflected in the way the government has acted. When we were in government, within three months the Conservatives had a deal in place. That was because our former prime minister always emphasized Canadian values as well as Canada's national interests in international relations. It was not about the spectacle part of it. It was only that to the extent that it made a difference to the lives, well-being, and prosperity of ordinary women and men here in Canada because that is the first job of the government. It is not to promote its own individual brand. The first job of the government is to advance the interests of Canadians.
That is what we need to be doing with respect to our relationship with the United States. We need to go deep. We need to engage multiple people. We need to focus on substance. It needs to be the kind of negotiation that for the people at home, the Marthas and the Henrys who are watching that discussion, things are happening that matter for them and make their lives better. That is where we should be focusing. That is why the motion is important.
