House of Commons Hansard #57 of the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was countries.

Topics

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Anthony Rota

We are getting into debate, but the hon. member does want to table a paper.

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay.

Oral QuestionsPoints of OrderOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Conservative

Gérard Deltell Conservative Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC

Mr. Speaker, as per tradition, it being Thursday, we would like an update on the business of Parliament.

As we all know, we will spend next week in our ridings. That is a very good thing. I look forward to paying a visit to Coiffure au Masculin, located on Valcartier Boulevard in Loretteville. My visit is a few months overdue.

I would like to know what we are doing when the House resumes on February 15. I hope that the government will table the famous bill to cancel the famous $1,000 to those who travel without necessity.

Business of the HouseOral Questions

3:10 p.m.

Honoré-Mercier Québec

Liberal

Pablo Rodriguez LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I am pleased to have the Thursday question. It allows me to talk to him, which is increasingly rare these days.

To answer his question directly, tomorrow we will resume debate at second reading of Bill C-10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act.

When we return from our constituency week on February 16, we will resume consideration of Bill C-14, an act to implement certain provisions of the economic statement. It is absolutely vital that we pass it quickly.

Wednesday, we will begin second reading of Bill C-15, an act respecting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which is also referred to as UNDRIP.

Thursday, February 18 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday, we will start second reading debate of Bill C-13 concerning single event sport betting, as well as Bill C-19, which would provide for temporary rules to ensure the safe administration of an election in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I hope all our colleagues have an excellent week working in their ridings.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Small Business

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Don Valley West.

I am always pleased to discuss Canada's most important trading partner. As parliamentary secretary for international trade, I believe that our relationship with our neighbours to the south is of the utmost importance.

Let us start with the numbers. Make no mistake, these numbers tell a very compelling story. Our two countries do over $2 billion in cross-border trade daily. Canada is the number one export market for the majority of American states. In fact, in 2019, Canada was the number one customer for 32 different U.S. states.

Over 74% of Canada's exports are sold to the United States. The U.S. is the single greatest investor in Canada. In 2019, U.S. stock investment in Canada was $455 billion, representing nearly half of all our foreign investment. However, when it comes to describing the importance of the relationship between Canada and the U.S., a purely economic analysis does not give the full picture.

Let me go back to September 11, 2001: the day that two planes crashed into the World Trade Center and another hit the Pentagon. Many other planes were in flight during that terrible attack, en route to the United States. Families returning from vacation, businessmen and women, students and other Americans were going home, but the Federal Aviation Administration closed U.S. airspace. In a phone call, former transportation secretary Norman Mineta ordered airlines to “get those goddamn planes down”, so those planes and their passengers bound for the United States needed a place to go.

They came to Canada. On September 11, 2001, 6,595 passengers and crew from 38 flights landed in the small town of Gander, Newfoundland. The story of the people of Gander opening their hearts and their homes to Americans is well known. It even spawned the highly successful Broadway musical Come From Away. It is, for me, the story of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

When Americans Clark and Roxanne Loper and their young adopted child were wandering through the local Lion's Club that was housing airline passengers, a Gander resident they had never met before asked if the couple needed a shower and a place to sleep. “There are no showers at the Lion's Club” the Americans said. “No, you can come over to my house and shower,” said the Canadian.

When Lisa Zale and her American business associate, Sara Wood, went to Canadian Tire for supplies and got to the cash to pay, the cashier asked if they were from one of the planes. When they nodded, the Canadian Tire employee said that anything the stranded passengers needed they could take, and the store was happy to provide it for free.

Local pharmacists supplied medicine to passengers who needed it. Canadian teenagers saw the many young children who were confused and scared, and organized a large party complete with games and cakes and costumes just to make them feel welcome and safe. I could go on and on. It is the story of Gander, Newfoundland. It is one of the many Canadian stories of 9/11 and for me it is the story of the Canada-U.S. relationship.

Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate President Joe Biden and Vice-President Kamala Harris on their historic victory. This is certainly a new chapter in our relationship, an exciting one full of promise and of hope.

Vice-President Harris spent her teenage years on the other side of the border from my riding here in Montreal. I met President Biden when he came to Ottawa for a state dinner as the vice-president in the Obama administration.

Mr. Speaker, I will not hide the optimism I feel right now.

Let us be honest. The last four years were by no means a cakewalk. The unique relationship between our two countries was tested, as the Americans imposed illegal and unfair tariffs, renounced international institutions, backtracked on environmental protections and lacked any predictability.

However, Canada and the United States have strong ties and relations. This government worked hard to maintain and protect this relationship and we were successful. We stood up for workers, for the aluminum and steel industries and for multilateralism, and we stood against protectionism.

All of this was at a time when the opposition was urging us to make compromises and make sure nobody got too upset. The current leader of the official opposition even suggested in 2008 that Canada should abandon its countermeasures in response to U.S. tariffs, because they were “not worth their symbolic nature.” There was nothing symbolic about our determination, and the U.S. lifting its tariffs proved it.

The motion before us today proposes the creation of a special committee tasked with studying all aspects of the economic relationship between Canada and the United States. While I am not convinced that a new committee is required to achieve that goal, I welcome any opportunity for parliamentarians to examine this important relationship. I had the privilege of studying the importance of our trade relationship with the U.S. at the international trade committee when it examined the new NAFTA, or the CUSMA agreement. The committee spent over 35 hours in intense study and heard testimony from witnesses from innumerable industries and sectors who explained how closely our two economies are bound together.

We have heard from automakers, dairy farmers, manufacturers, unions, first nations representatives, canola farmers, leaders from the chemical industry, cattle feeders, people from the music industry, chambers of commerce, the list goes on.

We have seen the direct impact of this relationship with the United States on all sectors and every region of our country. I am thinking about the mayor of Windsor, Drew Dilkens, who, in his testimony before the committee, told us about the more than 8,000 inhabitants of his city who go to the United States every day to go to work. He said that the parts for a car made in Canada crossed the border an average of seven times before leaving the chain of production. What a great example of the interconnectedness of our economies.

CUSMA is a victory for our aluminum industry. We got the tariffs lifted and a new guarantee of a minimum of 70% North American aluminum in the production of cars compared to 0% before. The agreement is also a victory for our cultural industries, which generate more than $53 billion annually. We succeeded in preserving the cultural exemption, protecting more than 75,000 jobs in Quebec alone. What is more, CUSMA includes a new chapter on the environment that will help ensure air quality and fight against pollution.

Canada and the United States enjoy one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. It is not only our business community that feels this way, but all Canadians: those in Gander, Newfoundland, where so many literally opened their homes; those here in Montreal and the eastern townships in Quebec, where so many Americans vacation; those in Windsor, Ontario, where our respective auto industries intersect; and those across the country in Calgary, Alberta, and Vancouver, British Columbia, from which so many of our exports to the United States flow.

We are stronger together, and our two countries share so much more than the most deeply integrated economies. We share the values of democracy, freedom and human rights, and a deep and strong North American culture.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Conservative

Mel Arnold Conservative North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC

Madam Speaker, Conservative governments negotiated almost 50 free-trade agreements with countries including the U.S., but the current Prime Minister was a no-show with the initial trans-Pacific partnership, resulting in the U.S. dropping out of that agreement and eventually resulting in additional concessions being made by our supply-managed sectors. Dairy farmers in my riding of North Okanagan—Shuswap have continuously paid the price for the poor negotiations of the Liberal government, but this committee could look into these issues and hopefully provide better guidance to the future. I am hoping the parliamentary secretary would support this committee being formed.

Does the parliamentary secretary support the motion to create this committee?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, I have had the privilege of speaking to dairy farmers very recently, in fact, when we were studying the impact of a potential United Kingdom-Canada transitional trade agreement at the international trade committee. I can tell the member that I have the utmost respect for our dairy farmers and that I know how important our trade agreements are to them. They were actually asking us to ensure continued access to the U.K. market and to many other markets. They are very pleased that Canada is the only country in the G7 to have trade agreements with each and every one of its G7 counterparts.

I think that the committee that is being proposed by the Conservatives is certainly an interesting idea. I am always prepared to study the Canada-U.S. relationship, whether it is in our international trade committee or in another committee. I certainly believe that it is a good idea.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Boudrias Bloc Terrebonne, QC

Madam Speaker, it is very interesting to be able to explore new avenues to improve and strengthen Quebec's and Canada's positions regarding our economic relationship with the United States. In the midst of a pandemic, we are experiencing a huge protectionist backlash from other countries. We have seen that from the United States in recent months.

I have had the opportunity to share various thoughts on free trade and other things with the House. I suggested invoking the national security clause several times. Other countries do that when the economic situation worsens in certain sectors.

Would my colleague like to look into that possibility, which does not seem to be in the nature of Canadian institutions?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan Liberal Outremont, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Obviously, I think that is something that we should have a much more in-depth discussion about, and I would be pleased to participate in that discussion.

Having worked in international trade, I must say that it is important for all of us to respect the letter of our agreements, including our bilateral, multilateral and World Trade Organization agreements.

Canada is a world leader. Canada's voice was extremely useful and important during the pandemic so that we could be sure to keep our supply chains open, keep international trade intact and remain open to the world. Protectionism has no place in Canada or in our allied countries.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Don Valley West Ontario

Liberal

Rob Oliphant LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs

Madam Speaker, it is a great honour to follow my colleague, the parliamentary secretary for international trade and small business. Today we have a good opportunity to discuss the very important relationship that Canada shares with the United States and the United States shares with Canada. Canada and the U.S have long enjoyed one of the most productive, collaborative and mutually beneficial bilateral relationships in the world. No two nations depend more on each other for their prosperity and security than we do with the United States.

Personally, I grew up on the border. I grew up in Sault Ste. Marie in northern Ontario, on the border with Michigan, and I grew up with a rather false understanding and notion that Canada was much bigger than the United States because Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, was three or four times the size of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, so I always had the sense as a small child that we were the larger and more important country. We may be bigger in land mass and we may be significant on the world stage for our many attributes that we have carried into the world, but I have since come to realize that the economic differences between our two countries are profound and that all through our history, Canada has had to seek ways to ensure that we are heard, that we are seen and that we have a mutually beneficial economic, cultural and social relationship. I think very much that we have done that.

It is a partnership of neighbours. We are forged by that same geography, with similar values and common interests, deep family and personal connections, and powerful multi-layered economic and security ties.

Much later, after growing up in Sault Ste. Marie, as an adult I did a doctorate at the Chicago campus of the University of Chicago. I was able to spend a considerable amount of time in the Windy City and understand some of the huge challenges in American society, and also the tremendous richness of that society. We continue to deepen those connections as we engage with the United States in so many aspects of our economic, cultural and social lives.

Our two countries enjoy the largest trading relationship in the world. We defend and protect North America together. We are stewards of a shared environment and we stand on the world stage to respond together to pressing global challenges. This is especially true in times of crisis.

These are not merely words. They are noting the extensive ties between our two countries that are reflected between our leaders. Just two weeks ago, the first foreign leader that inaugurated President Biden called was our Prime Minister. That was no coincidence. It speaks to the long-standing mutual respect and friendship that have been felt on both sides of the border. During the call, the Prime Minister and the President reaffirmed our strong commitment to shared values and interests, both at home and on the global stage. Together, our leaders discussed the fundamental priorities of both our countries, from ending the global COVID-19 pandemic to economic co-operation and free trade; from our security and defence partnerships to our shared commitment to diversity and inclusion. These are also many of the same priorities in the relationship I would like to address today.

Just this past Monday, the Prime Minister spoke with Vice President Kamala Harris, congratulating her on her historic election. As we all know in this chamber, the Vice President has a special relationship with our country, with Canada. During that call she fondly recalled her formative high school years spent in Montreal, just one way in which this relationship is unique, interesting and important. It is one way in which our relationship is rich. It demands both of us to be both respectful and to enjoy each other as people with common interests and common values. We will continue to talk and work things through even when we do not agree.

There are things that Canadians and Americans do not agree on. No matter who is in charge in Ottawa or in Washington, there are often times when we have to engage. We have to struggle and we have to come out the other side with what is mutually beneficial to both our peoples. It does not mean, as I said, that we are always on the same page. The Keystone XL pipeline is a vivid reminder of that, and the Prime Minister spoke frankly to President Biden about our disappointment on that decision.

We worked harder on our bilateral relationship over the last four years than ever before in history, and let us be honest: It has not been an easy four years. However, we worked at it and we have been successful in ensuring that Canada's interests have been well heard.

The fact that Canadians and Americans are able to speak frankly and be honest with each other is at the core of our relationship, and that is why, in spite of our differences, we have been able to accomplish many great things by working together. I think, in looking back over the last few years, that the largest and most important example is our renewed commitment to the trilateral commercial relationship which has come into force, the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement, known as CUSMA or the new NAFTA. The new NAFTA addresses modern trade challenges, reduces red tape at the border and provides enhanced predictability and stability for workers and businesses across the integrated North American market. I think we need to give kudos to our now Deputy Prime Minister, the former foreign affairs minister, who shepherded that very difficult negotiation, and also to our current foreign affairs minister, who, in his role as the chair of the cabinet committee on Canada-U.S. relations, has been integral in forming that relationship and keeping it strong. I also want to nod my hat to my predecessor in this position, the former member for Orleans, Andrew Leslie, who, as parliamentary secretary, made countless trips to the United States to defend Canadian interests with a depth of understanding about the way our two countries work.

In that way, this government was successful in ensuring that Canadian businesses, Canadian workers and Canadian consumers were protected. In fact, not only were they protected, but we also came out the other side of that deal with an enhanced trade agreement. It supports inclusive trade and it has outcomes that advance interests of gender equality, indigenous peoples and the environment. These outcomes will strengthen our commercial relationship, promote new opportunities for Canadians and Canadian businesses, and support our collective economic prosperity. It will also provide the bedrock on which we will build back our economies after this pandemic.

In many ways, the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance and the uniqueness of our relationship with the United States. We know the spread of COVID-19 has caused upheaval in both Canada and the U.S., and we have had to take unprecedented action to combat the pandemic, support our citizens and stabilize our economies. Last March, Canada and the United States arrived at a far-reaching agreement to limit discretionary and recreational travel across the border to try to keep both Americans and Canadians healthier and safer, an understanding that has been extended by mutual agreement every month since then.

The magnitude of this decision cannot be overstated. Ours is one of the busiest land borders in the world, with approximately 400,000 people crossing it every day, and the stakes are high. We want to defeat this virus so that we can return to normal back-and-forth trade agreements in recognition of the way we have done business so well over many decades. We have depended upon each other, whether it was right after the Halifax explosion or on the beaches of northern France. After the World Trade Center and the 9/11 attacks, as the previous speaker mentioned, Come From Away memorialized that tremendous relationship. In the devastating forest fires in California and Oregon, Canadians were there when the United States needed us, and Americans know that. Time after time, when I have those conversations with my American friends, they remind me of how important it is. It is about protecting ourselves, protecting our world and ensuring that all of us are able to move into a world that is safer, more free, more democratic, more respectful of human rights, more honouring of civil rights and better for men and women in both our countries and around the world.

Our societies have faced difficulties, and we have difficult legacies as well. We have come together to talk about an inclusive society, to combat racism and to ensure that indigenous peoples have their rightful place in both our countries, and we will continue to do that. We will do it together.

When it comes to this committee, if Parliament decides that we indeed should have or need to have such a committee, of course we will support it as an opportunity to further the relationship. Should Parliament decide otherwise, we will continue to work with Americans for Canadians' best interests in whatever way we can, at every opportunity, and do that in the way that Canadians have always done everything: with courage, with respect and with fortitude.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Ziad Aboultaif Conservative Edmonton Manning, AB

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's display of the importance of Canada-U.S. relations.

In light of the discussions, the oil and gas industry comes to mind for Alberta and the rest of Canada.

Today, there is a report about Democrat Senator Manchin, saying that he has split with President Biden on the XL pipeline decision. He states that he would rather buy Canadian oil than Venezuelan oil.

Has our government and the Prime Minister emphasized the same point that there should be no dispute whatsoever regarding our ethically responsible oil from Alberta and Canada when it comes to shipping it to United States and that the pipeline is very important for both countries? Have the Liberals emphasized that point, yes or no? I hope to get an answer on that.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, I did not hear that news of Senator Manchin's comments, but I agree that I would sooner be buying Canadian natural resources, including Canadian oil and gas, than any other country's oil and gas or natural resources.

I would also want to be exporting our oil and gas, and not just because I have a sister who lives in Edmonton who reminds me regularly of the importance of the oil and gas industry to Alberta. That industry is not only important to Alberta, but also to all Canadians. Every Canadian values the importance of our energy sector. We may have disagreements in some parts of the country about how that will work out with environmental considerations, but we all share the view that Alberta's economy is important, and we will continue to do that. We need to find—

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I will allow time for other questions.

The hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Gord Johns NDP Courtenay—Alberni, BC

Madam Speaker, we keep hearing about young people, especially students, who are struggling right now. There is a new campaign called “knock out interest”, led by 39 student unions across the country, representing 725,000 students. They say that charging interest on student loans forces those who need those loans to pay more for their education than those who can afford to pay tuition up front. Clearly, this is essentially a tax on lower and middle-income students and their families.

President Biden issued an executive order on his first day, extending the student-loan repayment freeze for eight months. Will the current Liberal government do the right thing and eliminate all interest charges on student-loan debt moving forward? This would be the right thing to do as a recovery plan for those students who are struggling right now.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Rob Oliphant Liberal Don Valley West, ON

Madam Speaker, I was waiting for the hon. member to make that right-hand turn to bring that into the discussion of Canada-United States relations. We can learn things from the Americans and they can learn things from us.

Let me say very clearly that student debt concerns me personally, and I know it concerns the government. We should be looking for every way during and after this pandemic to ensure that students have the best way to move forward in their life. I have been on that file since I was a university student, and I will continue to push to find ways to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible and available to every Canadian. As a former leader of mine said, if people have the grades, they should get to go to school. There should be no financial impediments to post-secondary education. I will continue to work on that and to listen to advice from people like President Biden, who often has some very good things to tell us.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Brandon—Souris and look forward to his comments.

In relation to the motion on the table today, when I look at the Canada-U.S. relationship I think it is important for us to look at what has happened along the way that has led us to where we are today. I go back to a time years ago when we first structured the initial Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement. It was a historic agreement at that time, but it took some significant doing to get it over the line. That was back in 1988 and it was initially instituted at the beginning of 1989.

There were two leaders of two countries who worked in goodwill at that point in time, Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and U.S. President Ronald Reagan, who recognized we had joint issues here in North America on which we could move forward on better together than apart. Trade was one of those issues. There were other issues as well, including continental defence, that were all part of the mix we needed to be addressed in that whole arrangement.

I want to bring members back to a time before the FTA, the free trade agreement of 1988, and look at what eastern Ontario looked like then. I remember being in Ottawa, because I was working in Ottawa then, and the Lord Elgin Hotel, a majestic hotel on Elgin Street, was shut down and ready to be demolished. There were several buildings around Ottawa that were half torn down.

This country had undergone an economic demise after the years of Pierre Elliot Trudeau, when economic sense had left this country, and we had damaged relationships with our most important trading partner. Our economy had suffered so badly that our dollar was plunging. We were in severe deficits and were accumulating mounting debt that we could not get out of. That is where free trade came to be so important.

I remember the election that happened in that year as well, in 1988, and the virtue signalling from the other side, who were saying that this was the end of Canada as we knew it and the complete demise of the nation we had built over the last 120 years. In fact, after the success that the free trade agreement enjoyed, it was refreshing to what the other opposition parties say that it was a great period for our country and one of the best moves forward we have ever made.

However, that is the start of it. It became an election issue, so Canadians got to vote on whether we should have free trade with the United States or continue to have separate arrangements and lots of tariffs between our two countries and a branch plant economy in Canada, which was not serving us well. Canadians decided to look ahead and move forward on a trade relationship.

That led to much of the prosperity this nation has enjoyed ever since. It has not Canada that has enjoyed that prosperity, but all of our trading partners with the United States have enjoyed that prosperity as well. Companies and individuals have enjoyed it. Think about our lifestyle here in Canada versus what they were pre-1988. The free trade agreement was the single defining event that moved us forward as a country and to what was, for a long time, world-leading prosperity among the G7 nations. Now we have come down significantly, but we need to get back there, and this relationship of course is the most important part of that.

One of the important but little-known parts of that free trade agreement is called the energy sharing agreement, whereunder if there were any disruption in the flow of energy between the two countries, we would have to jointly share the reductions that were happening. That would be for both countries, because we actually produce a lot of resources in Canada, ship them to the United States and flow them back across the border as finished products. Therefore, any shortage would affect our consumers on each side of the border, depending where that shortage was or how it happened.

We were facing world security issues at that time. That was an important part of this arrangement, and for the U.S. it was the linchpin of why it needed Canada in this agreement and why it wanted to do this deal. It surprised me in this last round of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico agreement when the then minister of international trade described this as something she was happy to get on the page. I say this because that was our main card in 1988, which was apparently not deemed so by this administration. I am bewildered by that, but I am certain that there must be some reasoning behind it and I would like to explore it further.

There is another agreement called the transit pipelines agreement, signed in 1977 by Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. It ensured that the pipeline transit between our countries, our borders, particularly through the Great Lakes, would continue no matter what. However, we now see an interruption of that. A state governor wants to interrupt the pipeline, thinking that it might be environmentally unfriendly, although it has never had an accident. It is just pure politics at this point in time and we need the U.S. government to step in. We need our Prime Minister to step forward and enforce that transit pipeline treaty with the U.S. President. There is some seniority with the federal government here, and that is going to be our main relation. The irony of the situation is that if we get this pipeline interrupted, Imperial Oil has already said that it is going to have to ship its oil at Superior, Wisconsin on two tankers to get it to market. It is the same water of body, but we have a pipeline that has never had an accident, and there is more CO2 in tankers than there is in pipelines.

These strains in the relationship between our countries have existed with previous administrations. I would say that between the Chrétien and Clinton administrations, there was some strain. There was more strain under Prime Minister Chrétien and President George W. Bush, but it levelled out for a decade. President Obama strained it some more under two Canadian prime ministers, including by cancelling the initial Keystone XL project, which was then brought forward under a subsequent president and now reversed by the current president. So there is ongoing friction between our countries, which is becoming more and more frequent. However, it is not just one event but a series of events as we look through history.

The main point is that this relationship between our countries is often exemplified by the relationship between our two leaders, and not just a relationship to have dinner together but a relationship where they actually show up and solve common issues together with the facts on the table, but that is not happening any more. What we need are some serious people to sit down and get this job done.

While a lot of what I have said so far has dealt with energy, I am going to discuss it further because we have a great energy trade between our two countries. We ship a lot of product, a lot of raw natural resource from western Canada, into the United States, and a lot of it is processed there. Some of it is used in the United States, but a good portion of that energy comes back into Canadian markets. That is the result of the free trading relationship between our two countries. That is the way we built it, and that is the way we prospered. However, to suggest that Canada by itself is energy secure in petroleum products is not looking at the entire situation. If our supply of hydrocarbon resources from the United States were cut off in eastern Canada, we would suffer. We are an energy-rich country that suffers at some ends of the country. We need to integrate that and make sure that we continue to prosper together with the United States, and make sure that no parts of our country get cut off.

Let us look at the growth in our energy trade and think about how much energy we export from Canada. In oil alone, we export four million barrels a day out of our production of about five million barrels a day in round numbers. Thus, 80% of our oil is exported primarily to the United States. This is what we have built a lot of our prosperity upon, but it is our balance of trade, which represents $100 billion per year in trade, that matters to us a country as far as our economy is concerned and how we enjoy our lifestyle. However, U.S. energy production has grown as well, from five million barrels a day at the beginning of President Obama's administration to 13 million barrels per day now. Therefore, oil production has grown progressively in both countries as far as the energy supply is concerned. Why? It is because it is a very good resource for our countries.

To conclude, I would love to talk more about how we need to move forward together with an environmental arrangement between our two countries, and how our current environmental arrangements are not doing that well, but effectively we are looking at value between our two countries here. Democracy, respect for human rights, support for universal education, health care and respect for the environment are things that we share, and free markets are the root of all of that. We need to see the issues that divide us abate and the values joining us succeed. I am looking forward this committee's work.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, in a lot of these discussions this last week, I have heard a number of members go on and on about the Conservative Party back in the day, and free trade and everything that it stood for back then. Well, yes, the Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney brought in free trade. I do not know what they want us to say. I was 11 years old at the time. Did the former Liberals from decades ago perhaps have it wrong? Sure. Do they want us to admit that? I would be the first to say that maybe they did not have it right then, but I certainly cannot accept responsibility given that we are talking about three or four decades ago.

Does the member not at least recognize, given the number of free trade deals this government has signed, that the Liberal Party today is a supporter of free trade?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I agree that we have progressed. I was 11 years old when that free trade agreement was signed, and the university I went to was paid for by the prosperity brought in by free trade. The health care we have enjoyed to this point in time has been purchased through the prosperity of free trade. These are linchpin moments in the country.

I really appreciate that your party now embraces what we had to bring forward. I look forward to you embracing some of the economic policies we are bringing forward now to make sure our two countries advance further on the environmental front and the economic front.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

I would remind the hon. member to address his questions and comments through the chair.

We will continue with questions and comments. The hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Luc Desilets Bloc Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC

Madam Speaker, I feel bad for my colleague. I was really looking forward to his speech, because I really appreciate his work. Unfortunately, he ran out of time and was cut off right when he was about to talk about energy trade as it relates to the environment, I think.

I would very much like to hear how he reconciles those two aspects. I would also like him to draw a parallel with Bill C-215, which we tried to get passed this week, but unfortunately his colleagues voted against it.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes

He has one minute, not a few minutes. Other members also have questions.

The hon. member for Calgary Centre.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

The environmental arrangements between our two countries are going to lead to what is called carbon leakage. If we proceed in a direction in which have pressing environmental issues, but we have one standard, and the U.S. has another, we are going to bleed jobs to the United States. One of the things we need to do in our relationship with the United States is come to a common environmental standard on how to reduce emissions jointly.

We are in North America, and we have a common energy environment here. We have pipeline, supply and energy that the world envies. We are not Europe. We do not have conflicts with our neighbours. If we were to pursue this jointly, we would together enjoy some prosperity and a reduction in the environmental effects, without conflict.

That should be one of the main things the government brings forward. I am hoping that with this committee, we can come to a common environmental understanding with our major trading partner.

Once again I thank my colleague.

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Jenny Kwan NDP Vancouver East, BC

Madam Speaker, President Biden's decision recognizes that subsidizing big oil and gas companies will not save workers' jobs. An energy transition plan with a focus on job protection is what workers need. Maintaining subsidies to big business does not do the job.

Does the member believe that he is helping shareholders, rather than protecting jobs, if we continue providing subsidies to big oil?

Opposition Motion—Special Committee on Canada-United States Economic RelationshipBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Greg McLean Conservative Calgary Centre, AB

Madam Speaker, what people call subsidies these days is anything we offer at the end of the day. The oil and gas industy, the industry alone and not the employees, has contributed $600 billion over the last 18 years toward Canadian taxes. That is not a subsidy. If they whittle it down and say here is an incentive to drill in certain areas versus others, they are still contributing a significant base to Canadian taxes, the most of any industry in Canada.

Therefore, this is not subsidizing an industry. This is motivating an industry to provide more Canadian jobs and prosperity to Canada. I hope that correction of what is spelled out as a subsidy is clear to my colleagues.