Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore is a great member of Parliament and a good friend to the Canada-U.S. relationship.
I would be remiss if I did not recognize the fact that it there was an election tonight in Nova Scotia. Tim Houston, who was the premier going into the election, was re-elected with a majority mandate. I would like to congratulate him on his successful election. I would also like to congratulate Zach Churchill, the leader of the Liberal Party, as well as Claudia Chender and all the candidates who put their names forward in Nova Scotia. I think we, as elected members of Parliament, can certainly respect and understand the importance of people putting their names forward for democracy. I look forward to working with all the newly elected and re-elected members of the legislative assembly in Nova Scotia, in Kings—Hants and across Nova Scotia.
This is a crucial debate. Obviously, I think that any concept of tariffs on the most integrated economies in the world is problematic. The proposal would not only hurt the Canadian economy, it would hurt the American economy and consumers on both sides of the border.
We do not have a whole lot to work with as parliamentarians, as has been reported and has been put out by the president-elect on his social media channels. He has alluded to the fact that, in his first day of office, once assuming it on January 20, 2025, he would put a 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports into the United States. It is worth noting that the Canada-U.S. relationship is one of the most unique in the world. We share the longest undefended border, and we have nearly 3 billion dollars' worth of products and services being traded between our two countries on any given day. That represents nearly a trillion dollars of trade. There is no country in the world that matches that reality.
I saw the president-elect's remarks. We, I think, as Canadian parliamentarians, want to work with the incoming administration. The Republican Party and President-elect Trump were elected in the United States. At the same time, we need to be able to find a pathway to work with that new administration and understand how we can get to an outcome that is going to be satisfactory for citizens on both sides of the border because it should be in the vested interests of any parliamentarian or any member of congress to get that outcome. We serve the people. We serve our citizens here in Canada, and this is extremely important.
The debate tonight is a debate about presumably the impact of what these tariffs would represent, as well as how the Government of Canada responds, but I would argue how members of Parliament in the House should respond because the government has a responsibility, but so too do we. Every elected member of a Canadian constituency has a responsibility to represent Canada's interests and, of course, be the voice for our people here in Parliament.
I want to break my remarks down tonight into a few different categories. I want to start by talking about the economic relationship, but I also want to talk about defence and national security. I want to talk about a North American continental approach. I also want to talk about a team Canada approach and how we should go about this relationship over the next couple of months. However, I will start with the economy.
I believe that, for 32 out of the 50 states in the United States, their most important trading partner is Canada, which would be 64% of the United States. We have a deep economic relationship. In fact, in Canada, 75% of our exports, whether in goods or in services, go to the United States. We as a government, and many previous federal governments, look at diversifying trade as a good thing. Of course, we want to partner around the world, but we cannot get around the facts that we have one of the most advanced economies in the world right on the our doorstep and that our relationships are integral and connected.
With talk of a 25% tariff on Canadian products, while I am not suggesting that the government should do this right away, if there was no movement on this issue between now and January 20, 2025, any reasonable government in the country would have to respond at some point to protect our national interests. That would just lead to impacts on both sides of the border about business interests and the impact on communities.
We have been here before. This government has managed a rocky Canada-U.S. relationship. Throughout our history, since Confederation and the Declaration of Independence, there have always been times throughout the relationship where relations can be strained, but we know that even in those times, the Canada-U.S. relationship must prevail because of the shared interests and values we have between our two countries, the protection of freedom, democracy and liberty and the promotion of western liberal democracy across the world. It will be incumbent on all members of Parliament in this place to engage with their congressional colleagues on Capitol Hill to remind them about the importance of the economic relationship, a two-way relationship that benefits Canada and the United States equally.
I want to talk a bit about the resources that Canada has that can benefit the United States. We wake up every morning thinking about the United States and their importance in a continental relationship. The United States is one of the largest countries in the world and, arguably, the most powerful country in the world. The U.S. may not think about Canada in the same way that we think about it every morning. I think of the importance of critical minerals, not only on the reduction of emissions and in the context of climate change but also in the context of defence and security. We possess the critical minerals the United States needs. The other critical mineral superpower in the world is China. We know from the relationship and the way in which both Democratic nominee for president, Kamala Harris, and President-elect Donald Trump have approached this that there is a concern around China's influence in the world.
Canada has the critical minerals that the United States needs. We have seen investments by the Department of National Defence in Canada's north in partnership with Canadian companies alongside our government to make sure we build a supply chain that will work in a North American context. A 25% tariff, at the heart, goes directly against this type of thinking and would not be helpful to the American interests across the United States.
When we talk about energy, Canada is an energy superpower. We should be deeply proud of that, whether it be our oil and gas sector, renewables or other forms of energy. Nuclear energy is also a key opportunity to partner in deeper integration with the United States. The United States needs our energy market. I had the opportunity at the Halifax International Security Forum to have a conversation with a representative from Amazon. Amazon is looking at artificial intelligence and deep data centres as a way to help drive its business, as well as innovations that are going to be needed around the world, but it needs renewable energy to do that.
Canadians listening at home tonight would be proud to know that Canada is one of the best grids in the world from an electricity perspective. Nearly 86% of our electricity that is generated is emissions-free. It leads the world. It is a tremendous opportunity and competitive advantage. As American companies look to expand their footprint in the digital space, whether it be in Quebec, British Columbia or across this country, we are well positioned to capitalize upon that, but 25% tariffs do not help in that.
In the integrated market, on any given day, whether it is a company in Kings—Hants, Nova Scotia, Etobicoke—Lakeshore or Surrey, British Columbia, we have companies that do business across borders and vice versa. There are great American companies that provide products and services that we need in this country, so we cannot look at this from an and/or perspective.
I listened to questions in question period today and heard the Conservatives using the words “Canada first”. Any member of Parliament in this place wants to place Canadian national interests at the top of what we advocate for every day, but that type of thinking plays into an isolationist type of view that I do not think is beneficial when we are talking about the Canada-U.S. relationship. We have to be talking about partnership. Every time the Conservatives stand in this place and talk about Canada first, we should be talking about North American advantage and how Canada can co-operate. That puts Canadian interests at the heart of what we are doing alongside the Americans in a global context. I want to talk about that in an economic sense, but we need to talk about defence and national security.
I submit that the world is probably the most dangerous it has been in the last 100 years. We have war in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, provoked by Vladimir Putin and the Russian Federation. We have war in the Middle East, and I was pleased to see a ceasefire today between Israel and Hezbollah. That is important news, but again, there remains instability in that region, and we have a rise of authoritarian governments around the world.
Again, I bring members back to my experience at the Halifax International Security Forum. One of the panels this weekend in Halifax was on the CRINKs, China, Russia, Iran and North Korea, and their involvement in the world. They are not out to protect and promote democratic values. They are out to do the opposite, and Canada has an interesting role to play in the world here. We have to promote the ability for western liberal democracies to succeed in this challenge that we are facing, which is, again, the most dangerous world we have seen in 100 years.
That bears upon a responsibility for Canada and the United States to take a leadership role in the world, and the way we do that is by working together. It is not by putting up walls or tariff barriers between us. It is by looking at ways that we can further integrate our economies and ways that we can co-operate in the interests of national security.
I think it took a bit too long, but I fully support the fact that the government has committed to a 2% target on NATO. It is going to require billions of dollars between now and 2032 to scale up to that amount. The member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and I were in Washington in July as part of the NATO conference, and we had these conversations alongside congressional leaders in the House and in the Senate about the ways Canada can be a key partner in NATO.
Madam Speaker, do you know what is concerning? I heard the shadow critic for defence today stand up in the House. It was the first time I had seen in a long time that the leader of the official opposition allowed him to speak in this place, and he asked questions on defence. The Conservatives love to beat their chests on the defence question. They had defence spending under 1% when they left office in 2015, and they have not yet committed to the 2% target, so my question to my hon. colleagues on the other side of the House is when they will formally commit to the 2% and help work and push this government to do more on defence spending, because not only is it a moral imperative in the world that we are facing right now, but it is going to be an extremely important element in terms of that relationship with the United States.
When we talk to Republican congressional leaders, they will be engaging with the president-elect about the importance of U.S. influence in foreign policy, but they will be saying NATO countries have to step up and deliver sooner on their commitments. The government is starting on that path. The opposition should be joining us and saying they fully commit to 2%, but I do not hear a lick out of them in relation to foreign policy. They do not talk about it. They do not talk about their view in the world, and I think it is probably incumbent on them, if they think they are the government-in-waiting, to start talking about how they view the world and Canada's role in the world, particularly as it relates to defence.
I just want to take an opportunity to talk about the team Canada approach. This is extremely important. We saw the premiers write to the Prime Minister and talk about the importance of bringing the premiers of the provinces and territories together. We have to be united in a team Canada approach. I know we can have partisan debates in here. I just took a bit of a shot at the Conservatives on the opposite side, but I did so in good faith, hoping and knowing that at the end of the day, Canada's interests should come ahead of any partisan interests in this place.
We are in a critical moment, and I think it is incumbent on the government, to the extent that it can find goodwill across this House, to build consensus and to go to Washington and make sure we are advocating for Canada's interests as a united team Canada, alongside the premiers. I think that should include the provinces. We have seen Premier Ford, and we have seen Premier Wab Kinew and Premier Danielle Smith talk about their desire to get to Washington and to Capitol Hill. That is important.
Canada is a big federation. We have regional interests that may differ, or there may be particular strategic assets, depending on whether someone is in the Atlantic or if they are in British Columbia, the west, Ontario or Quebec, that may differ in terms of how they want to engage in this relationship, but we have to do it in an aligned approach. I think that is incumbent on all members of Parliament.
We should be thinking about our work and our ability to travel to Capitol Hill and engage constructively with our American colleagues in Congress about the ways we can work together. We need to build those relationships. It is muscle memory. We need to be able to spend time on Capitol Hill. Some of us do this very well. There may be others who have never actually taken the opportunity to go to Washington. It is important that we do that and that we invite our American colleagues to come to Ottawa, so we can reinforce the partnership that we have together.
The last item is regarding industry and key stakeholders. This is going to be important. The cross-border business relationship needs to be reinforced, and we have to find symmetry regarding ways that we can create wins for industry in both the United States and Canada. I believe there is a window and a great opportunity to do more of that, and we should view this relationship not as a contentious one or one that is a threat to Canada. I know a 25% opening conversation on tariffs is problematic, but we should view this as an opportunity in terms of how we can further deepen the relationship and build wins on both sides of the border.
It would be irresponsible of me not to talk about the agriculture question. I chair the House of Commons agriculture committee, and I want to talk a little about some of the cross-border wins that I just alluded to. We need to be identifying harmonization of policies that are wins for our Canadian agriculture sector and the U.S. sector as well. I want to give one example, which is Bill C-280; I think it is by the member for Simcoe North. It is in the House. I am deeply disappointed that the Senate has amended the bill, notwithstanding that it was agreed to with 323 votes to 1 in this place. It will be coming back to the House, and I would ask the House to reject that amendment. Furthermore, if the bill is going to be delayed, it is absolutely responsible for the government to take the contents of the bill and put it in some type of economic legislation. We are mired in a question of privilege, and things are blocked here in the House. However, there are important pieces of legislation that we have to get through for the Canada-U.S. relationship and for Canadians; Bill C-280 would be one of those.
I think about opportunities around the Pest Management Regulatory Agency and the EPA and ways that they can share information to be able to drive questions around crop management and crop protection products and approvals. That is an easy win that I presume a Republican administration would see as straightforward policy that we could also sell on our side of the border.
I think about the ability to align on the standardization around standards and what products are actually marketed under. That is something we could align in a North American context.
Around wilderness protection, people in the United States, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, are big on protecting nature and natural lands. We can also find bipartisan or multipartisan consensus here in Canada around protecting natural landscapes. Those are things that we could do together in alignment in an international context.
I want to talk about Nova Scotia quickly. We are fortunate to be exempted from the forestry tariffs that have been discussed in the House. As an entire Parliament, we need to continue to lean in on that question. The forestry sector matters to this country, and we should be there.
The president-elect mentioned two things in his post yesterday: fentanyl and the border. I would hazard a guess that any member of Parliament in this place wants to tackle the question of fentanyl and the impact of drug abuse in this country. We are all standing there, and the government can do more.
Certainly with respect to the border and any immigration mechanisms, we can make sure we give confidence to the incoming administration that by no means should there be a 25% tariff on our products. It would hurt American industry, and we can work with the incoming administration to make sure that we have partnership.
I look forward to taking questions from my hon. colleagues.
