Bob Rae

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

No, no. It is too late. It is all down in print.

It is very difficult for me to say that there has been no change from the statement made by the Minister of Finance in November and the budget that has been presented. Is it perfect? No, it is not perfect. It is not a perfect document but it is a basis for discussion, which is really what we are doing. We are sending this to committee. The committee will have an opportunity to discuss it.

In the few minutes that are left to me I want to raise the issues that I want to discuss. I am very concerned by the cuts in science, research and higher education. I wrote a report for Premier McGuinty on the importance of that sector and I am disturbed that the Government of Canada has not moved in the right direction.

I believe there is a fundamental question about employment insurance. It is a tax. People pay the tax. The minister said today that the 20% of people who pay the tax will not qualify for employment insurance under any scenario. I want to find out more about who those people are and why she thinks that is equitable and fair.

I want to deal with the question of pay equity because I want to listen very carefully to what my friends in the New Democratic Party are saying. I want them to have a look again at the legislation to see whether there is not a way of resolving what I do not believe is a vast ideological chasm between the legislation and what we all think needs to happen.

I am concerned about what has happened to some provinces and in particular about the treatment of provinces that feel the changes that have been made in transfers have been made in a way that is not fair. I am very concerned about the question of the affordability of infrastructure. The government needs to have a practical look at the actual debt level of many of the cities, municipalities and provinces across the country to understand what impact it is going to have on the take-up rate. Is there not a better way to get those transfers to the municipalities? It seems to me that is a critical question.

I want to close on the question of pensions. If there is any public policy area that I do not believe the House has discussed in sufficient detail or with sufficient knowledge, it is the question of pensions. We face a tremendous challenge in the private sector. We face not just the people whose pension funds are underfunded as a result of what has happened, we also face the fact that there are literally millions and millions of employees who do not qualify for pensions and who do not have pensions. We have relied on CPP and RRSPs. There are a great many Canadians, in the millions, who do not have any RRSP money and are going to be left in great difficulty in retirement.

Those are questions and issues that I think need to be dealt with in the budget. Should the budget be defeated at this stage? I do not believe that it should and I hope that my reflections will give the House a chance to move this bill into committee and have it discussed in greater detail.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to participate in the debate and appreciate the opportunity to speak.

This is not the first time I have stood on my feet and spoken in the House, but it is the first time since my election last year that I have had the opportunity to, perhaps in a little slightly more reflective way, thank my constituents for sending me here twice, in a byelection and now in a general election, and to say how proud I am to represent the constituency of Toronto Centre. It is a riding in which my father grew up. He went to Jarvis Collegiate, and then to the University of Toronto. Had it not been for a $250 scholarship that he received upon entry in 1932, he would not have been able to attend university.

I know many members opposite have called me many things, to which I take no particular objection. However, I am very proud of my constituency and of my association with the riding of Toronto Centre and I am very proud to represent it here today. It is a riding of enormous diversity. I know there are a great many people in the country who like to take some exception to Toronto and might have a certain, perhaps, picture or stereotype in their minds about it.

However, if I can describe it to members, my riding goes from the lake to north of Rosedale. It goes from the Don Valley Parkway, over to Yonge Street and makes a couple of other small jogs. I know many members of Parliament represent ridings that are 100, 200 and 500 square kilometres and mine is much smaller. However, it is an intensely diverse riding, where immigrants come. It is their first point of entry, their first point of staying. St. James Town has perhaps the most densely populated part of the country. Literally tens of thousands of people live within a square block. It was well known when the riding was known as Toronto—Rosedale. It includes some of the wealthiest parts of the country, in terms of its constituents. It also includes Regent Park which, as many members will know, is one of the oldest public housing developments in the country and includes some of the least well-off people in the country. We have a large aboriginal population. We have a large gay population. We represent the diversity of Canada and the diversity of the world. It is a constituency which I am very proud to represent.

As has already been referred to by some of the members who spoke earlier, this is not my first time in the House of Commons. I was first elected here in 1978, which is over 30 years ago. This is my 30-60 year in which I turn 60 and in which I celebrate my 30th anniversary of my election to the House of Commons. Next to my colleague, my seatmate, the member for Wascana, who was elected in 1974, I think I can speak with some confidence of some of the history that we have had here with respect to the country.

I want to speak about our budgets. I want to speak about Canada's recessions. I want to speak perhaps in a way that will disappoint some people because it will not be an intensely partisan speech. I want to try to reflect a bit on some of the challenges we face as a country and on the moment which we are dealing with this intense economic crisis and perhaps compare and contrast it with some of the challenges which we faced in the past. I am speaking from personal experience.

I was the finance critic of the New Democratic Party for three years and saw budgets come and go, the budget of the Conservatives and the budget of the Liberals at the time. It was a time when we were entering into a serious recession, in the late 1970s and 1980s.

I remind members, and in the case of many of the younger members I will tell them, that when Mr. Crosbie brought in his budget in 1979, that budget had a provision for a deficit of just over $7 billion. It was a budget that also called for an increase in the taxation on gasoline of some 18¢ a litre, and there are some colleagues who will remember the arguments about that and how that went forward.

That budget was defeated. It was then followed by an election, in which Liberals were elected, and then the recession took hold full bore and full steam. It was a very difficult recession. It was a recession that saw unemployment in some parts of the country go to over 20% and, in the case of the national average, we went well up over 11% and 12%.

It was a budget that was accompanied by a long national debate on the national energy program, which proved to be extremely divisive and difficult for the entire country, in which we saw oil prices literally collapse, which seemed to be, from the point of view of the consumer, a good thing and from the point of view of the producing provinces, a very difficult thing. We saw a recession, which in its general impact, was shared very much across the country.

By the time the Trudeau government was defeated by Mr. Mulroney, the last Liberal budget, which was brought in by the Hon. Marc Lalonde, contained a deficit of well over $40 billion. It was a time when people were really unsure as to whether these techniques of priming the pump would actually work, whether it would have the desired effect.

Under the Mulroney government, that deficit went down. There was a very quick transition out of the recession that took place in the province of Ontario, starting at around 1983 and 1984, something of which I am familiar because by that time I had shifted from the federal scene to the provincial scene. We saw a very steady increase in employment and in the health of the economy from 1984 to 1989 to the point where the Peterson government was able to introduce the first surplus, balanced budget in Ontario's history for over 25 years. There had been 25 years of deficits in Ontario and it had been steady deficits in Canada from the early 1970s until 1998.

Some of my colleagues may have read in the National Post that I have had opportunities to make a little fun of how I have somehow given up my title of being the deficit punching bag to my colleagues across the way. All I intended by that article, which I am glad to say struck a certain note with some people, is simply this. I know we went through a period when, as a country, we made a collective decision that deficits added upon deficits added upon deficits, regardless of whether the country was in recession, whether we were in growth or whether we were in a remarkable healthy state, was dangerous territory for the economy of Canada.

This is often not accepted as the fact, but the simple fact is all the premiers agreed in the early 1990s, regardless of political party. I can remember very vividly the conversation in which it took place. It was the night before our premiers' conference in 1992. Premiers were there from the New Democratic Party, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. In an informal discussion before our normal first ministers meeting, we went over the ground on what we were facing in our economies. We had a very candid discussion about how challenging it was, how difficult it was, how hard the fiscal and financial situation that we faced in the early 1990s was, the impact it was having on all of our budgets and how we had a responsibility to deal with it, because in the long term, Canada would only be better off if we could manage our public finances in a better and healthier way.

We all made the moves that we had to make to get there, and they were painful moves. They were not easy. They were difficult. When Mr. Martin became the minister of finance in 1993, the first budget was not a tough one. The second budget was a tough one.

The 1995 budget, which really started the country on the way to a steady reduction in the deficit and to an improvement in our overall financial situation, was not simply the product of the political will of the Chrétien-Martin government. It was a product of prosperity and growth taking place.

I know that we all like to take credit for surpluses and we all like to allocate blame for deficits, but the simple fact of the matter is that it is the overall state of the economy that by and large determines where our fiscal and financial policy is headed. That is why I have taken no joy in saying to the government that I believe it has seriously underestimated, for a long period of time, the difficulties and the challenges which it is going to face and which any government is going to face in the face of the economic change we are going through.

One of the things that I learned in 1990, when I became premier, was that the estimates one gets from finance officials when things start going wrong usually underestimate just how wrong they are going. People usually overestimate the revenue numbers and usually underestimate the costs associated with a recession.

There is no magic here. As I look around the room I would say that what is happening is so clear that it is tragic to say we should have learned these lessons long ago. The revenue situation facing the Government of Canada and the provinces is going to get worse and the cost side is also going to get worse.

When I looked at the numbers the Minister of Finance presented in his economic statement in the fall, I found them absolutely unbelievable. Literally unbelievable. I could not believe that a Minister of Finance would produce that kind of a statement just as the world was heading into this maelstrom, this hurricane.

I am not claiming to be any kind of financial guru. If I were, I would be somewhat substantially better off than I am today.

I would say to hon. members that the recession which we are going through today is of a different character than the ones we went through in the 1980s and the 1990s. They were very difficult. Certainly, the one that was focused on Ontario in the early 1990s was very tough. Our unemployment rate went up from 5% to over 11%. We lost over 300,000 jobs in a 15-month period.

I hear the numbers coming out today, and I know exactly how bewildering these numbers can be sometimes. Statistics Canada gets it wrong, everybody gets it wrong. There is no obfuscation in this. There is no conspiracy anywhere. It is just recognizing that as human beings we do not have all the answers and we do not know exactly what is going on. What we do know is what we are facing today is even more serious than what was faced before.

I have often heard it said that a government cannot spend its way out of a recession. Actually, it really depends. It cannot do it on its own. I certainly discovered that as premier of Ontario. When facing high interest rates and cuts in federal transfers, to try to reflate from the base of one province does not work. It causes problems and challenges which we faced in Ontario.

On the other hand, what we are facing today and what we are seeing today is an unparalleled argument, not just from one government but from a whole series of governments, that something dramatic has to happen because of the credit crisis in which certain bad loans were allowed to be syndicated. Having been syndicated, they became a kind of virus which has infected the entire financial system. That is unparalleled.

There is no comparison to what we faced before. Interest rates are low, one can argue and debate this ad infinitum. The tax structure is imperfect and could readily be improved. There are serious problems with it. It is not acting contrary to the possibilities for growth and investment by and large in Canada anymore than it is in any other country.

Still we are facing the signs of a recession that is not coming quickly to a conclusion. I think it is fair enough to say that most financial experts, most economists, and indeed the head of the IMF believes very clearly that the worst is not yet over. There are still very difficult times to come.

I know the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance accused members of the opposition of taking pleasure in the terrible numbers. I want to assure him that is not the case. No rational person would, certainly not one representing a constituency like mine, and we all represent different constituencies where this is the case.

We all represent ridings where we can see the difficulties people are going through. We receive people in our constituency office. We can see the scope by the number of people in difficulty who consult us, because they are in very difficult circumstances.

Honestly, the government made a pretty remarkable about face. Is the budget perfect? No, I would not say so. Would my leader or a finance minister from the Liberal Party have presented such a budget? Absolutely not. Still, does this budget provide the basis for a discussion that allows us to send it to committee? Yes, in my opinion.

I do not think it is perfect. The document poses major problems for me. However, one would have to be totally ideological to say there had been no change of opinion or policy between the economic statement in November by the finance minister, a number of months ago, already, and the budget.

Now I am not an ideological person. I try not to be. I try to be practical. I do not like the Conservative government. I do not like Conservative ideology. I have never made any pretense that I have. Most of them do not like me, which is the way it is.

[Sri Lanka, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the subject of Sri Lanka, which I have raised with the minister before, we have seen a very serious escalation of violence on both sides--on both sides, I stress--in the last four days.

Are there any additional steps the minister and the Government of Canada plan to take with our friends and allies and with the United Nations to ensure that we bring this terrible conflict to a conclusion?

[Foreign Affairs, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on the same subject, I would hope the minister would agree there is at least a chance that the American government will decide not to pursue the case against Mr. Khadr. In that case, would we not be wiser now to be negotiating with the United States for a supervised release of Mr. Khadr into Canada where he could be under supervision and under guidance rather than simply being released? Would that not be in the interests of the country?

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, on a very personal note, my father was a minister in the Canadian embassy in the 1950s. I was Richard Nixon's newspaper boy. What could be a greater sign of cooperation than for me as a young nine- or ten-year-old to be delivering papers to Richard Nixon?

I can hear the conspiracy theories coming from the other side--

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, the coalition agreement negotiated between the former leader of my party and the leader of the New Democratic Party did not involve moving away from NAFTA, did not involve moving away from our commitments on international trade, and did not involve any steps at all that would have taken us from a sound and positive position for Canada.

I have no problems in saying that what was there was there, and that what has happened since has happened. All I am saying to the hon. member is that Canada is at a moment when we need to come together as a Parliament. In my view, the vote next week should be a unanimous vote. It would be a great thing for this House to be sending the clearest message possible to the United States with respect to our position.

If I mistook the 20 minutes of diatribe from the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster as a sign that he was in favour of the motion proposed by my colleague from Kings—Hants, and if somehow I failed to understand the sophistication of his argument and the intricacy of his conclusion, then I accept entirely the criticism. I would be delighted if the New Democratic Party were to support this motion, but it was hard to tell if that was the case. It was a little difficult to tell whether that was really where he was coming from.

It is important for us to come together as Canadians and as parliamentarians and send a very clear message to our friends and colleagues in the United States.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not know whether he is supporting it or opposing it. It sounded to me as though he was opposing it. If now he is saying he is not, we will wait for them to fall off the fence one way or the other. We will just have to see what they do. I have no idea what they are going to do. It was not clear from his speech, obviously.

Second, I never attacked buy Canada. What I said was that whatever we do has to be compatible with our international obligations. He asked if it was legal or illegal. I said if it is legal, we will do it, and if it is not legal, we will not do it. It is as simple as that. I did not attack anything.

Finally, I never, ever, in my comments attacked the steelworkers. I did not do that. Anybody listening would know that I did not do that. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Algoma. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Hamilton. He is the one who is attacking steelworker jobs in Regina.

He is the one who is refusing to recognize that we are at a moment when the American Congress is about to take steps that are going to be harmful to Canadian steelworkers, and we do not have time for the political theory that it would be nice if we could work out some new trade pact on steel. We are not going to be able to do that in five minutes, but Congress is going to be passing this measure in five minutes, and that is why I am opposing this measure.

I plead with my partners in the New Democratic Party, my friends in the New Democratic Party, because they are still my friends. I will say to them very clearly that I hope they will stand up with their fellow parliamentarians. I hope they will stand up for Canadian workers and say no to American protectionism, because it is bad for America and it is certainly bad for Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member was country before country was cool. I can certainly understand why he would say that, but I do not think there is any point in any one of us competing to say who is best friends with whom. We are friends with the American people because of our long-standing relationship. We are friends and neighbours, and that relationship is there. We have differences of opinion with them and we have differences of policy with them from time to time. I am talking about how we effectively have to advance Canadian interests, and advance them in an effective and sometimes quite aggressive fashion.

There was no special exemption for softwood lumber. This is one of the great myths that has been perpetrated over the years. There has never been an exemption for softwood lumber. There never was. The issues on softwood lumber were an object lesson for me.

When we have a competitive advantage in the United States, 50% of the U.S. Senate represents states with less than 20% of the population. In those areas of resources and agriculture, as we are now finding in steel and in manufactured products, we have a fight on our hands with respect to American protectionism, and it will only grow. The sooner the members of the Conservative Party, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc can all come to terms with what that means and with the need to take strong action, the better off we will be.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to participate in the debate. I congratulate my colleague, the member for Kings—Hants, for introducing this motion. I have listened with great interest to the discussion and debate.

I will have some comments to make about the speech of the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, but I want to indicate my strong support for a simple proposition, which I do not believe is because I am the captive of some strange ideology that has been ascribed to members of this party.

My support for the resolution comes from an intensely practical sense. Right now we are facing a challenge as a country because our greatest and closest trading partner is introducing an $850 billion to $900 billion stimulus package, which has provisions attached to it that will discriminate against Canadian companies.

For my friends in the New Democratic Party, if they are not prepared to defend that, then in my view they are not prepared to defend the interests of Canadian workers and Canadian business. They are missing the point and they are missing the boat. The New Democratic Party is the captive of an ideology.

The British Labour Party, the French Socialist Party, the German Social Democratic Party, the Swedish Social Democratic Party, the Norwegian social democratic party, I say with great respect, is a movement of which I know something.

The neo-isolationist view that is taken by the current federal New Democratic Party is removing it from every intelligent debate about trade, globalization, economic change and economic progress that has taken place over the last 30 years.

In listening to the speech from the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, I must confess I was taken aback. If anything could be described as a lecture in some abstract political philosophy and political theory, it is the speech we just heard from him.

We face a practical challenge as a country. Our greatest trading partner is about to engage in an act of protectionism. We have an obligation as Canadians and we have an obligation as members of Parliament to intervene forcefully on behalf of Canadian workers and Canadian businesses in the face of that protectionist spirit.

The dilemma facing the United Steelworkers, an organization with which I am extremely familiar and with which I have had close ties over many years, of which I am extremely proud, is it has decided to take a position that says it can defend the interest of American workers, as it sees it, by excluding products from other countries and it can do it without side-swiping Canada. We will see whether that happens.

I am not interested in advancing the interests of anyone other than the interests of Canadian workers, Canadian businesses and Canadian economic interests. If I think friends of mine who I have worked with over the years are making a mistake, I have no hesitation in saying they are making a mistake.

I am certainly not here to argue their case. I am not here to say I am arguing their case as if it is in the general interests of the people of Canada because it is not. Workers in Sault Ste. Marie will be laid off as a result of this measure being introduced in the United States. Workers in Hamilton will be laid off as a result of this measure. Workers at IPSCO steel in Regina will be laid off as a result of this measure.

The member for Burnaby—New Westminster can engage in all the political philosophy and all the pirouetting he wants, but he cannot ignore the fact that the position being taken today by the New Democratic Party of Canada is contrary to the interests of Canadian working people and of Canadian businesses.

This notion that somehow what has happened to the Canadian economy and what has happened to the standard of living in North America is a product solely of the North American Free Trade Agreement is preposterous. Those members should open up their eyes, look beyond the horizon, see the transformation of India and China and see what the whole process of globalization has meant. Has it produced hardship for many Canadians? Yes, of course it has. Has it resulted in the loss of jobs in the country? Yes, of course it has. We cannot look at trade agreements alone and say that it is those trade agreements which are the cause of what has taken place in the country. It is a silly proposition.

I repeat this point. The social democratic parties in virtually every advanced industrial country have recognized that the best way to produce wealth is through markets. This is not the product of ideology; this is the product of experience.

Do we need governments? Of course we need governments. Do we need governments to intervene? Of course we do. Governments make up somewhere between 30%,45% and 48% of the GDP of economies across the OECD countries. We can see where we have been in the mix, but we are all mixed economies. However, at the basis of that mixed economy has to be strong markets. Are markets getting bigger? Yes. Are they becoming coordinated? Yes. Are they coming together? Yes. Is the world globalizing? Yes. The sooner the New Democratic Party recognizes that fact, the better off it will be and, frankly, the better off the level of debate and discourse in the House will be.

We have to come to terms with the fact that we are members of NAFTA. I fought NAFTA. I did not like NAFTA. Why? Because I believed at the time that the Conservative government was mistaken in thinking that somehow, if we signed that agreement, we would be able to avoid American protectionism.

The argument that was made by the Conservative Party at the time, by the prime minister of the day, was that if we signed the agreement, we would somehow come under an umbrella and we would not be subject to the kind of side-swiping which we have seen.

I spent 12 years working with the private sector and for much of that time, I was involved in the softwood lumber dispute. My family appreciated the fact that I was so involved, because it was a long and arduous negotiation and discussion.

The American Congress is not deeply attached to the notion of free trade between Canada and the United States. It likes to say it is, but every time we have a competitive advantage, every time we have an advantage which gives us access to markets in the United States, which is greater than the Americans would like to see, it responds.

The free trade agreement did not and has not protected us against that. It has not had the effect of protecting us against American protectionism. We have to simply accept that fact and say that there is a level of integration that has taken place under NAFTA, there are issues that we still have, but we have to deal with the world as we find it.

I also find it interesting that the member for Burnaby—New Westminster says that any kind of buy Canada provision that we would want to put in would be legal. That would depend on what the provision was. I am not ideologically opposed to a sensible buy Canada provision if I think it will match what other countries are doing, it is something we have to do and it is in the framework of our legal structure and of our international obligations. However, we are members of WTO. We are a trading country. Our co-ops depend on trade. Our co-ops depend on access to international trade.

One of the most ludicrous comments the member made was to suggest that somehow the members of the Liberal Party were opposed to the co-operative movement. Tell that to my friend, the former minister of agriculture, who has done more to build up co-ops, supply management, intervention and the third sector in Canada. We do not need to take any lessons from the New Democratic Party in how we build up the third sector in our country. The fact remains, it has to be done in conformity with the law. It has to be done in conformity with our international obligations and with the fact that we are part of a big world. That world is good for our prosperity, it is good for Canadians and, frankly, there is no other way than for us to be engaged in this world in a positive and constructive way.

That is why, in my conversations with American congressmen and with American senators, I say time and again that it is not that we understand what they are doing and that they should go ahead and do it because it is good for them and somehow we will cope with it all. That is a ridiculous message for a Canadian politicians to be delivering to our friends in the United States. The message I have been delivering is that their concern has to be, not simply with the short-term prosperity that they think they are buying with this measure, with what this will do to the whole pattern of world trade and to the pattern of world investment.

We are in the middle of a very difficult financial crisis, not only in Canada, not only in the United States, but around the world.

When the leaders of the G20 met, Social Democrats, Conservatives, Liberals, representing a variety of political parties and political traditions, what did they all agree on? One of the premises that they all agreed on was that we would not play beggar thy neighbour. We would not try to advance our own short-term interests at the expense of our neighbours. We would not try to bring in a measure that might look as if it were helping workers in Indiana, or Ohio, or Pennsylvania or Florida. In fact, it would not have that great beneficial effect, but it would have a hardening effect on the sense of understanding, on the sense of reciprocity and on expanding commerce and expanding trade. That has to be a critical feature of our coming out of this crisis into a greater world of prosperity.

My colleague from Kings—Hants has spoken very effectively about what we need to do together as a Parliament to make this change happen. He has spoken very effectively about the need for us to intervene. He has spoken very effectively about the need for us to improve relationships. He has spoken very effectively about how some of the positions taken by the Conservatives in the past have not particularly helped with respect to our developing ties and understanding with members on both sides of the aisle in the United States. It will require us in Canada to up our game and to improve how we are engaged and how we relate to our friends in the United States.

I particularly want to emphasize the importance of this resolution at this moment in our history and in the discussions that are going on in the United States. Let there be no doubt in the United States where Canada stands. Let there be no doubt of the sense in the House as to our common interests.

I was very interested in what the hon. member for Sherbrooke had to say. He made some critical comments about how important trade is not only to Quebec but to all of Canada. This is not just a Quebec issue or an Ontario issue or a British Columbia issue. All Canadians are affected, and I would even say, the whole world.

We have a shared interest as members of Parliament in insisting that the rising protectionism in the United States does not help really us achieve the joint prosperity we all want and does not help to create more open, prosperous markets. What we want is to build a world together that respects the creative power of markets.

We adhere to the principles of social partnership and social justice and believe that the moment of decision has come for this House. Now is the time for us to say with one voice that this is in the interests of all Canadians, and frankly, in the interests of all our American friends as well.

We have to appeal not only to our sense of fairness to our friends in the United States, not only to their sense of what their international obligations are under the law, but we also have to appeal to their common sense and common interest. It is not in the interests of the United States to adopt measures that would limit the trade, the commerce and the exchange which needs to exist between our two countries.

As my friend from Kings—Hants has said, a full 40% of the trade that takes place between Canada and the United States takes place within companies. There is no such thing as a Canadian car or an American car. The parts from Ohio move to Ontario. Cars are being assembled in Ontario and the other parts from Ohio are being added. This is a fully integrated industry. It is true as well for steel. It is true on so many dimensions and at so many levels.

If the Americans pass this measure, will we have to respond in some way? Of course we will. Should we sit back and say we are not going to take it? Of course we will have to respond effectively.

Let no one think for a moment that we are creating these autarchic economic models in our head, where the picture of the economy in our heads seems to be one where some bright boffin in Ottawa will manage the trade between one country and another and say that one country will produce over here and the other will produce over there. The world does not work that way. It is not the way the world should work. It is not the way the world will work.

The sooner we come to grips with these two things we will be better off: first, what is happening in the world economy and how we have to understand it more deeply and respond more effectively and collectively to what we are facing; and second, that the moment of decision is coming in the American Congress and it is our responsibility to respond effectively and aggressively to those protectionist steps being taken in the Congress.

The sooner we come to grips with these two simple facts, not political philosophy, not some abstract economic ideology, of the way things are right now, the better off we will all be.

[Situation in Sri Lanka, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2002 I was in Oslo when both parties agreed that they would use federalism as the basis for future discussion. Can we return to that? I personally hope that we can in some way. Let us not forget that the basis of federalism is self-government and shared government. That is the decision we made as a country, historically, in the years leading up 1867: self-government and shared government.

That is one of the ways in which one could look at finding a solution that would allow the island to remain as one, which is a very important objective of the majority, and at the same time provide for some self-government for the Tamil community.