Gerald Keddy

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I am sure there was a question there.

I think the hon. member was trying to convince himself, or maybe even convince others, that somehow or another our government does not have a close relationship with the U.S., which of course is utter tripe and nonsense.

I said earlier, in response to the other Liberal member who was speaking, that regardless of political stripe, it is only responsible for a Canadian prime minister, whether Liberal or Conservative makes not an iota of difference, to have a mature, respectful relationship with our American counterpart. That is not rocket science.

We expect to have a very friendly and ongoing, and beneficial relationship with the present administration. If it was a different administration we would expect to have the same relationship with it. Political stripe really makes no difference at all.

There has been no missing the mark or dropping the ball here. This is something new that has occurred. Most people in the world hold great promise and great hope for President Obama. This is his first real test as a president. He has to be very vigilant to make sure the protectionist forces do not overtake the Congress in the U.S. because there is no gain in there for his administration or for his citizens.

We must look at the positive issues here. Canada went into this economic downturn because of decisions we made in the last couple of years in a very powerful position. We paid down $67 billion in debt in the last two years. That put us on a different footing than any other country in the OECD. We have the strongest banking system in the G20. As a matter of fact, we have the strongest banking system in the G7.

Canada is in a very enviable position in this economic downturn. We were the last to enter it and we expect to be the first ones out of it. We are not going to get out of it, period, unless we continue to have a frank, open and mature relationship with our American neighbour and trading partner.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, before I start my speech I will go a little further on the question that I just raised, because I think it is only common sense. It behooves everyone in this place to have a reasonable and respectful relationship with our trading partners around the world, regardless of who those trading partners are.

Certainly we are making a serious mistake if anyone in this place thinks that we do not have to have a rules-based trading relationship with the United States of America, our closest neighbour, our greatest ally and our largest trading partner. It is absolutely essential to our ongoing livelihood here in Canada. It is in the best interests of our workers, it is in the best interests of our businesses and it is in the best interests of all Canadians. The money generated from those economies helps to pay for everything that Canadians receive.

There has been some attempt, I believe a playful one, at trying to drive a wedge between the government, the American administration and the new President. That is sheer folly and sheer foolishness, because regardless of the political party in power in Canada and regardless of the political party or person in power in the United States, it is absolutely incumbent upon both administrations to have a good, solid, respectful relationship, because both countries benefit. That is not rocket science in any way, shape or form.

As you know, Madam Speaker, there has been a discussion in the House on this issue today. There has been some interesting debate, and the economic stimulus package is making its way through the U.S. congressional legislative process. We have been watching with great interest and trying to have as much influence as possible on the decisions that the Congress in the United States will make.

We need to put the measures that are moving through the Congress in perspective. Governments around the world have all found themselves in the same position. We are moving into turbulent economic times, and these are very recent changes. These changes occurred in the last quarter, and we expect they will deepen in this quarter.

When the G20 leaders met in Washington in November of last year, there was a wide range of views regarding both the nature and the seriousness of the situation. Certainly the situation had not progressed to the degree that it has today. In spite of these differences, however, the G20 leaders were able to agree to provide timely stimulus to domestic demand while also maintaining long-run fiscal sustainability.

In Canada we acted on our own commitment. On January 27 we tabled our economic action plan, a plan to stimulate economic growth, restore confidence and support Canadians and their families during this synchronized global recession. The action plan will stimulate the economy by building infrastructure, reducing taxes, freezing EI rates, stimulating housing construction, improving access to financing and strengthening Canada's financial system by helping Canadians through training programs.

Just as our economic action plan is meant to provide stimulus in Canada, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is predominantly meant to stimulate the U.S. economy. The cost of that bill is now approaching $900 billion. It includes extensive tax cuts, assistance to state and local authorities for education investment, new health care investments, unemployment benefits, and infrastructure and energy investments.

However, there is another reality, the reality of the integrated North American economy of today. That stimulus package will also benefit the neighbours across the border, Mexico and Canada, and as long as everyone is contributing to the solution, we should be welcome within that stimulus package.

That is a clear message to the United States. Given the magnitude of the challenges we all face, no individual country is likely able to save itself without help from its trading partners. No individual country in the world is an island. Now is not the time to allow protectionism to rear its head. It will drive the economy downward; it will be a downward spiral not seen in the global economy since the 1930s.

We are extremely concerned that the broadening of the buy American provisions in the U.S. stimulus package will lead to other countries following similar protectionist policies and will create that downward spiral and fuel a greater economic crisis. That is why our government was making our concerns known to the American administration, legislators and other stakeholders long before the opposition was on this file.

One-third of all cross-border trade between Canada and the United States takes place with companies with a presence on both sides of the border, and two-thirds is within established supply chains. If either government were to introduce new barriers or preferences now, it would increase costs, cause delay and disrupt the way that businesses have organized themselves on the continent, thereby resulting in decreased North American competitiveness. I do not think any of us on the North American continent can afford that at the present time.

The Minister of International Trade recently met with U.S. trade officials and strongly indicated Canada's concerns about increased U.S. protectionism and the pressures and possible broadening of buy American provisions in the proposed stimulus package. He said, “We know from history that protectionist legislation winds up hurting one’s own economy and invariably hurting the economies around it”. In a follow-up letter to the acting U.S. trade representative, he wrote, “Canada believes that elements of ARRA now under consideration are protectionist in nature and contrary to the very goals of economic recovery that this bill is intended to address”.

That is the very start of what happened and how this issue has grown. It is important for all Canadians to know that we have taken our message to the American government. We have used all of the assets at our disposal, including one-on-one discussions with American legislators, congressmen and senators. We have certainly been in broad and thorough diplomatic discussions with the United States. We know how serious this issue will become if we are not able to nip it in the bud.

Certainly, we are not alone in our concerns and we are not alone in the lobby. America's other trading partners have expressed concerns. There is domestic opposition as well from companies as diverse as Caterpillar, which has a tremendous national market in the United States but also is an exporting company. There are many national business organizations and corporations that have now taken another look at the bill and said that it looks good on paper, because protectionism always looks good on paper, but what are the results of it? The results are that America would lose jobs, would lose opportunity and would lose income.

Canada has tremendous political capital with our closest friend and ally, the United States. We are optimistic that the United States will not proceed with a bill that would be damaging to international trade. After all, the greatest danger to global economic stability is that other countries would retaliate with protectionist measures of their own.

Last night's vote by the U.S. Senate to ensure that the U.S. stimulus package meets all international trade obligations is an encouraging sign. It is the first crack and an encouraging sign that our combined efforts are making progress.

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

We owe it to all of our trading partners to resist protectionism and maintain an open marketplace.

Meanwhile, Canadians and Americans share the largest and most comprehensive economic partnership in the world. We are one another's largest customers and largest suppliers. We are joined at the hip. We are dovetailed together. Anyone in this place or any other place who thinks that we are not dependent upon the American economy and the American economy is not dependent on us is making a very serious lapse in judgment.

Although our precise policies may differ because we are separate countries, our objectives as nations are similar. We seek prosperity, security and a good life for all of our citizens. The prosperity of our neighbours is inextricably tied to our own. Our two economies are so integrated that we must address this downturn together.

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has called upon the government to intervene forthwith and persistently with the United States administration and Congress in light of what he characterizes as growing protectionism in the United States.

As this House knows, the government has responded quickly and effectively to specific protectionist elements which appeared in the stimulus package being prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. It certainly does not stop there.

Canadians will be gratified to learn that a committed and gifted team of civil servants and Canadian diplomatic representatives have been working around the clock on this file engaging their counterparts on the other side of the border, but also working with their contacts in industry, trade and academia.

American newspapers, talk shows and radio phone-ins have been filled to the brim with debate on this issue, and yes, Canada can take plenty of credit for broadening the public discourse in America. Last night our friends in the Pearson Building received a note from our advocacy team in Miami. I will read a few lines of it.

“On February 4, Miami head of mission, Marcy Grossman, addressed the 100-plus members and guests of the board of the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, the leading business organization in this town with over 2,500 members. While the event had been arranged for Miami's head of mission to present the highlights of our newly available study of the Canada-Florida economic relationship, she used the occasion instead to deliver the Canadian message on buy American. Our timing was unusually felicitous because the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce board also considered today its advocacy priorities for the U.S. federal and state authorities in the next few weeks. In addition, the members of the board's international advocacy group were already considering what the chamber wants to say on this stimulus legislation to the Florida representatives in the U.S. Congress. The result was an immediate invitation for us to provide our information to the key people today, so they can consider it in their approach to Congress on the stimulus package. We have already sent them a package containing the basic talking points, Ambassador Wilson's letter to the Senate leadership, and the letters from the CME, the Canadian American Business Council, and the U.S. chamber and industry associations”.

This morning the The Miami Herald published an op-ed piece by the respected Latin American columnist, Andres Oppenheimer, urging the U.S. Congress to kill the bill's buy American provisions. In it he observed that the exact details of the bill are far less important than the message it sends to the rest of the world. The column quotes Canadian Ambassador Michael Wilson and ultimately concludes:

If it gives U.S. trade partners an excuse to pass their own ''Buy national'' laws, U.S. exports will plummet even more and more U.S. jobs will be lost than this provision would help save. Now, please make sure that “Buy America” doesn't turn into “Bye America.”

This debate has come full circle certainly in the United States. We have made great headway in the House of Commons. There are more of us in agreement on this issue than there are in disagreement.

Our interventions and our interlocutors across the U.S. are being heard loud and clear. We have like-minded stakeholders in business, in industry and in academia. We have a situation where for the first time in many years, more than 100 major U.S. corporations have signed a common letter to the U.S. Senate leaders warning them about expanding protectionist measures, and their comments ring loud and clear in Canada as well as in the United States.

There are lots of people weighing in on this debate. One U.S. economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics has concluded that buy American provisions in the bill will cost more jobs than it will create. Most of us are in agreement with that. Earlier this week President Obama spoke out about the need to avoid sending a protectionist message when trying to stimulate the economy and about the need to make sure that the provisions in the legislation will not trigger a trade war. Again, I think the Americans have come full circle on this.

Quite frankly, as the Minister of International Trade said last night, we are not out of the woods yet. The decision is yet to be made, so it is no time at all to give up on a full court press. It is no time to slacken the pressure that we are exerting on our American friends and colleagues. In many different arenas, in academia, in industry, in business and diplomatically, we have pursued this with great zeal on behalf of the citizens of Canada.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Kings—Hants for this timely motion. It is an important debate. It is a debate that needed to be had. It has allowed all of us in the House to clarify our position vis-à-vis whether we are going to move in a protectionist direction, join the downward spiral of nations that would destroy the economy of Canada and potentially of North America, or if we are going to stick to our formula that has worked for more than the past decade of rules-based trading that is fair and equitable to all of the players, that allows everyone in every economy to join with their allies, whether they be across the American border, the Mexican border, the Colombian border, the Costa Rican border or the Peruvian border.

The world is moving toward more free trade, not more protectionism. To turn our backs on that at the present time would be a serious mistake for our nation. It would be a worse mistake for our citizens, because we would let them down and be directly responsible for a greater loss of jobs than we are seeing in this downturn.

[Business of Supply, February 5th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I will try to be brief.

I listened with interest to the hon. member's speech. I think he certainly understands the issue and understands the threat we all face. I agree with him that a unanimous decision by this House would be excellent.

However, there was one point. I do not think there is any point in going back and looking at who said what, when they said it, which parties support the Americans, or which ones do not. As a fact, any government in Canada has to have a close relationship with its American partners regardless of its political colour.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, there is a carve out for procurement for the federal government and certainly for the provinces. There is a three year period where the tariffs as they exist today will remain the same. There is a total 15 year phase-out for the most sensitive shipbuilding sectors, and a 10 year carve out for other shipbuilding sectors.

I do not know what to say. I was at the committee when Mr. McArthur was there, and I do not believe I saw the hon. member there. I would suggest that he should read the witness's report.

I realize shipbuilding has some sensitivities largely because it is an industry that has great potential but has not had a lot of support in the last decade.

I continue to believe that given the right financing opportunities and given the opportunities to access foreign markets, our workers can compete equally with workers anywhere in the world.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it was certainly an interesting comment on human rights. With every free trade agreement that we negotiate on Canada's behalf, we automatically look at human rights and labour practices. That is a given. There are no free trade agreements negotiated where we do not take into consideration human rights, labour practices and labour rights. That is guaranteed.

Again, we did consult widely with the shipbuilding industry. I am sure there are sectors which will never agree to the final document, but as parliamentarians, we have to judge the entire document. This document is put together to work toward tariff phase-out between the EFTA nations and Canada. Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Canada will all benefit from increased trade and increased reduction of tariffs.

There is a real concern throughout the world that the old policy of protectionism will rear its ugly head especially in this economic downturn. It is easy to find someone to blame. It is easy to say that we are not doing enough. If we allow protectionism to take over the world as it did prior to the Great Depression in the 1930s, then everyone will lose. We would not have to worry about protecting jobs because there would be no jobs to protect.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the agreement of course does address the concerns of the Canadian shipbuilding industry. It addresses industry concerns on tariff phase-out, the 15 year phase-out on the most sensitive shipbuilding products and the 10 year phase-out on the other sensitive shipbuilding products.

Certainly with respect to repairs and alterations, the industry was concerned about the phase-out schedule on ships temporarily exported to EFTA countries for repairs and alterations. We have addressed those concerns.

In the draft agreement, we addressed the industry's concerns on the rules of origin applicable to ships and they are precisely as requested by the shipbuilding industry.

With respect to government procurement, we are supporting the industry by making sure that government procurement is Canadian first, just as we have defended Canadian procurement in other free trade agreements.

The federal and provincial governments will continue to have the right to restrict their bids to Canadian shipyards for the purchase, lease, repair or refit of vessels such as ferries and frigates.

This also recognizes the importance of Canada's domestic government procurement market for the shipbuilding industry.

What is probably more important, we renewed the structured financing facility in 2007 by providing $50 million over three years to reduce the cost of purchasing vessels built in Canada.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in debate today on the European free trade agreement between Canada and the countries of Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland.

I listened with great interest and respect to the opposition parties and certainly to the interventions by the Liberals and by Bloc.

The European Free Trade Association countries are significant economic partners for Canada, with Canadian merchandise exports totally $5.2 billion in 2007 and incoming investment to Canada totalling $18.2 billion in 2007.

Some members of the House would like to ignore that. Some in the House would like to twist the facts with their own rhetoric into something that does not resemble this free trade agreement at all. I caution these individuals that there is nothing secret. Anyone watching this debate throughout the country can go on line. Copies of the agreement are available. There will be continued debate. It will go back to committee.

This is a straightforward free trade agreement between Canada and our European countries, the first free trade agreement between Canada and any European country.

Those numbers on imports and exports, those dollars, will increase not decrease in the years ahead. To go further, under our Conservative government's free trade agenda, we will expand free trade. We will move forward, and never mind the critics.

Intelligent debate is fine. Reasonable, rational debate is positive, but we need to have that and we need to have a willingness to listen. We have to be able to sit down at the table and move forward in a positive way. We cannot get stuck in the rhetoric of the past, as some of the parties in the House are prone to do.

I congratulate the minister and the departmental officials on the important achievement of moving forward to sign this agreement and bringing it finally to the House of Commons. It will strengthen Canada's position in the global economy, it will strengthen jobs and opportunities in Canada and it will strengthen trade.

We are not an island. When I listen to some of the parties in this place talk about protectionism and building barriers, first, they would spend every dollar in our country. Second, when the dollars and the jobs were gone, then they would look for someone else to blame. Some of the economic rationale and the discussion is so far overboard and the hyperbole is so outrageous that it really takes away from the debate in this place.

As the Prime Minister indicated, current global economic uncertainty highlights the importance and the urgency of expanding international trade, investment relationships and improving market access for Canadian products. Canada is and always has been a trading nation.

The recent throne speech confirmed that trade and investment was a priority during these challenging economic times. Free trade allows Canadian business to compete in international markets.

As the member of Parliament for South Shore—St. Margaret's, a rural riding in Nova Scotia, I understand how heavily our producers and manufacturers rely on secure, predictable access to the global marketplace.

Consider also that half of what we manufacture in Canada is exported. It is absolutely essential to guarantee that this 50% of our manufactured items have a market in the world's economy. Consider that one-fifth of all Canadian jobs are in part linked to international trade.

In my riding of South Shore—St. Margaret's, I would say that it is even larger. I would say that 75% of the jobs in this riding in rural Nova Scotia are linked to international trade.

Our forestry sector is all value added. There is the AbitibiBowater paper mill. Louisiana-Pacific has a hardboard plant. It is all export oriented. Sure, some products are sold locally, but the majority of them are exported.

As for our fishery, the majority of it is exported. On our agriculture products, many are sold locally, but there are a lot of exports. All of the manufacturing, whether it is by Composite Atlantic or a furniture manufacturing company, is for export.

We are a coastal riding. We grew up in and go back to the days of the schooner in international trade.

Without trade, there would be no jobs in many parts of Canada.

Be it with this new agreement, our negotiations with Jordan, or, in accordance with our government's goal of renewed engagement in the Americas, the signing of free trade agreements with Peru and Colombia, the Conservative government has demonstrated its commitment to giving our producers and exporters the access they need to succeed around the world.

If we level the playing field--and it is our job as government to level the playing field--our manufacturers and producers will compete anywhere in the world and succeed every single time. If we put up artificial barriers, we will always be stuck where we are. We will never be able to compete internationally.

The Canada-EFTA free trade agreement places an emphasis on tariff elimination, specifically, the elimination of duties on all non-agricultural goods and the elimination of or reduction in tariffs on selected agricultural exports.

On the agriculture side, Canada's producers and exporters will benefit from the elimination or the reduction of tariffs on key agricultural exports, from durum wheat to canola oil, pet food, blueberries, and a wide range of processed foods.

On the non-agriculture side, the free trade agreement will eliminate all tariffs on Canadian exports to the EFTA countries, on everything from aluminum to cosmetics, clothing, prefabricated buildings, and coldwater shrimp.

Canadian manufacturers will also benefit from lower cost manufacturing inputs for their own products.

Canadian companies operating in EFTA countries will benefit from the new trade ties forged by this agreement, which will allow them to move goods more readily between their operations at home and in the treaty countries. As well, these companies will be better positioned to exploit the benefits of value chain business relations throughout Europe.

Recognizing the importance of the broader European market, the agreement will also provide a strategic platform that Canadian companies can use to tap into value chains all across Europe.

This free trade agreement proves that our Conservative government and the Prime Minister are serious about helping our businesses thrive in the global economy.

We are also serious about listening to the concerns of the provinces, territories and industry as we negotiate these agreements. The EFTA agreement is a perfect example. Negotiators consulted extensively with industry and provincial and territorial stakeholders to ensure that their concerns and interests were fully understood and considered during the negotiations. This kind of open, consultative approach will continue as Canada continues to fight for market access around the world, whether it is at the WTO or with our bilateral and regional trading partners.

Allow me to take two moments to remind members of what happened with Canada-EFTA in the previous Parliament. The Canada-EFTA free trade agreement was the first treaty to be tabled in the House of Commons under our government's new treaties and Parliament policy.

The Standing Committee on International Trade chose to study the agreement and issued a largely positive report. In terms of market access, the committee found that benefits of this agreement to Canada would be largely in the agriculture and agrifood sector. Some industrial sectors would benefit as well. The committee recognized that gains in trade could pave the way for an extended agreement that would include services and investment.

The committee also highlighted the testimony of several witnesses, indicating that the very presence of a free trade agreement could create interest within the business community in exploring economic opportunities in Canada and the EFTA. The committee's report recognized that the Canada-European free trade agreement, in addition to reducing tariffs, could act as a catalyst for increased trade, investment and economic cooperation between Canada and the EFTA countries.

While the report outlined concerns about shipbuilding, it also found that Canada was able to successfully obtain tariff phase-out periods of 10 years and 15 years on the most sensitive shipbuilding products. The 15 year phase-out period is the longest phase-out period ever of any free trade agreement signed in Canada's free trade history. Both the 10 year and 15 year tariff phase-out periods include an initial 3 year bridging period during which current tariff levels would be maintained.

Our government negotiated favourable product-specific rules of origin for ships, as well as special provisions for repairs and alterations.

Finally, the Canada-EFTA free trade agreement does not in any way alter the government's buy Canadian policy for ships. It does not alter in any way our buy Canada policy.

The Canada-EFTA free trade agreement implementing legislation was tabled in May and passed second reading by a vote of 200 to 21. While the bill was reported to the House of Commons Standing Committee on International Trade for further study, it ceased to exist when the 39th Parliament was dissolved. We are now reintroducing the implementing legislation.

These free trade agreement negotiations were initiated in 1998. They were put on hold for almost six years by the previous government. The conclusion of negotiations was finally announced in June 2007.

This is an important piece of legislation. It has a long history in this place. I certainly encourage my colleagues in the other parties to engage in the study of this bill. This is a good bill for Canada and I would say that it is a good bill for our four trading partners in the EFTA group.

There is a larger issue at stake here. This is all part of our government's global commerce strategy. It is all part of reaching out and seeking free trade agreements around the world.

Certainly if we look at the free trade agreements we signed with Peru and Colombia, our re-engagement with the Americas and our work with the CARICOM countries, the Central American four and Panama, and the technology agreement we just signed with Brazil, all of those agreements are important for Canada. There are hundreds of billions of dollars of Canadian foreign direct investment in the Americas, let alone the rest of the world, and we are certainly pursuing closer ties and more free trade agreements within the Americas as well as the rest of the world.

Since coming to office in 2006, we have signed with Peru, Colombia and the EFTA. We have a free trade agreement with Jordan that has been initialled. We are working on the CA4: Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras. There are also Panama, Korea, the CARICOM group and Singapore. The EU agreement is in the exploratory stages. We are also in exploratory talks with India.

These types of agreements will carry Canada's manufacturing sector and producers into the future, where we will have guaranteed access to foreign marketplaces. With these agreements, we have put in place a dispute mechanism system that will allow our producers and manufacturers to compete on an even threshold, so to speak, with manufacturers in other countries.

I listened with some interest to the interventions and discussion by the Liberal and Bloc members. One of the concerns about this piece of legislation, of course, is shipbuilding. I think our Canada first policy on procurement should easily lay those concerns and worries to rest. At present we are building 98 new coast guard vessels and refurbishing another 40. We are looking at a world class icebreaker. We are going to refurbish our frigates.

The shipbuilding sector of our economy is resilient. I feel that our shipbuilding sector can compete and that our workers are some of the best in the world. I fail to understand why one party in the House does not have any faith in the shipbuilding sector and is not willing to allow it to compete in the international marketplace. Somehow that party thinks this sector is going to fall by the wayside if we engage in these free trade agreements. Nothing anywhere that I have seen and no report that I have read proves any of that.

Once again, I encourage everyone in the House to have a free and open debate on this free trade agreement. It is a good free trade agreement and a progressive free trade agreement. It would lead Canada in the right direction and would provide jobs and opportunities well into the future.

[Canada–EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, February 2nd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments on EFTA by my colleague from Kings—Hants. I congratulate him on his new appointment as critic for international trade.

I will try to go through the couple of points I have fairly quickly because a number of members want to ask questions.

First, the member for Kings—Hants was talking about his support for free trade in general and the fact that he was urging the government to get on with more free trade agreements. Of course, he would be aware that part of the challenge before the government is that there have been no free trade agreements signed since 2001. The previous government signed agreements with Costa Rica, Chile and Israel and did not sign any after that, whereas we have signed agreements with Peru, Colombia and EFTA. Jordan has been initialized. We are working on the CA-4, that is, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Honduras, as well as Panama, Korea, the CARICOM nations, and Singapore. We are in exploratory talks with the European Union and with India.

On the issue of EFTA and procurement, the member is well aware that procurement has been set aside. The Canadian government has already ensured that all military vessels, all major contracts from the government, will be procured within Canada. Of course, the structural financing, the $50 million, has been put back in place. This was put in place originally by the former government. We have renewed that.

Turning directly to Canada, there are a couple of points. This agreement is worth a tremendous amount of money: $125 million to Atlantic Canada, nearly $500 million to Quebec, $4.5 billion to Ontario, $173 million--

[The Budget, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, this is a very prudent and practical budget for these very trying economic times. The Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Prime Minister and everyone involved in the budgetary process knew what the economy was doing and where the economy is going. We put together a budget that would provide a stimulus for the Canadian economy at a time when the economy needs a stimulus. The stimulus of $35 billion this year and $30 billion next year is unprecedented in Canadian history and is exactly what is needed in these very difficult and trying economic times.

[The Budget, January 30th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would know that the Premier of Nova Scotia's word is good and the Prime Minister's word is good. The Province of Nova Scotia will certainly get the full amount of its transitional fund delivered. It is an agreement between the Prime Minister and the premier.

I spoke to the premier last night and he thought this was a great budget. A lot will be delivered to the province of Nova Scotia.

The budget has a few hidden gems. I would ask the hon. member to take a look one of the little gems in the budget that has gone primarily unnoticed, and that is the proposal to spend $5 million in two years on an independent task force to come up with recommendations to the Minister of Finance on a cohesive national strategy on financial literacy. These are the types of programs that can go a long way to help all men, women and young families, people who are trying to make a living and trying to get ahead in society, to plan their financial future.