and about 30 per cent of mexico ’ s. we can talk about how many times a single auto part might cross a national border during the assembly process. and we can talk about the intricate supply chains that have been developed over more than 50 years. or, we can show how building a single, integrated north american auto industry has led to jobs in all three countries. the automotive parts manufacturers ’ association has done a good job putting the numbers together. in canada, 81, 000 people are employed in the automotive supply sector, by both canadian and foreign - owned firms. those canadian companies operate 150 plants in the united states, employing almost 43, 000 american workers, and 120 plants in mexico, providing jobs for roughly the same number of workers there. it is hard to imagine how interfering with open trade or implementing other protectionist policies would benefit these people and their families. it would be helpful to hear many more examples from other industries. policy - makers, business leaders and labour leaders all have a role to play in showing how open trade has meant jobs for workers across north america and around the world. nobody can explain the importance of trade to an employee better than their employer. regardless of what evolves, though, there is no shortage of potential sources of growth for both of our economies. the first order of business should be to keep working on opening trade elsewhere in the world. in this respect, canada has been playing catch - up to mexico, which has successfully negotiated access to many more markets than canada. the numbers tell a clear story. as of today, canada has free trade agreements in force with 15 countries that represent about 22 per cent of global gdp. mexico has agreements in force with 47 countries that represent 44 per cent of global gdp. but if you take the united states out of the picture, canada is left with free access to just 6 per cent of the world economy, compared with 28 per cent for mexico. the good news for canada is that this gap will close significantly once the agreement between canada and the european union comes into effect. it is unfortunate that the trans - pacific partnership, with its ground - breaking coverage of intellectual property and services, has been shelved for now. still, the work that was put into those areas could prove useful for both canada and mexico in future trade agreements. the bottom line is there is still scope for both countries to improve access to markets outside of north america. 4 / 5 bis central bankers'speeches within canada, we had the positive news

central banks, of assuming an unchanged monetary policy stance over the forecast period. in doing so, we are not committing ourselves in advance to a particular interest rate path. at a simplistic level, this approach could tell us that if the forecast is above the target, then the stance should be tightened and vice versa. it does not tell us how the forecast will change if interest rates are changed, although different scenarios on different interest rate assumptions can be run. it also does not tell us what the optimal interest rate path would be to keep inflation within the target range over the forecast period. thus, interest rates may not remain unchanged over the forecast period if inflation is to be kept within the target range. nevertheless this approach does illustrate clearly the rationale for changing interest rates or leaving them unchanged. an alternative approach, which has been adopted by a number of central banks, is to look at the market forecasts of future interest rates. it has been pointed out by various analysts that this approach contains a problem of circularity. as noted earlier, market rates are set to some extent on the basis of what the central bank is expected to do, so there is nothing to pin down the system, leading to indeterminacy of inflation. the third option, favoured by a number of academics, is for the bank to give its forecast of the future path of interest rates. the central banks of new zealand and norway follow this route. the difficulty here is that the public has to understand that these paths are not unconditional commitments, but that they can change if the facts change. unless this is fully understood, it can have an adverse impact on monetary policy credibility. there are other practical problems with this approach. in particular, how do you get a committee of eight people to agree on a path of interest rates over the next three years, when it is sometimes exceedingly difficult enough reaching agreement on the current move! it should be borne in mind that monetary policy in new zealand is made by the governor alone and not by committee, which reduces some of the practical difficulties associated with this approach. even if a full path is not specified, there is also the question of whether or not the monetary policy committee should signal future moves or policy bias. here again practice varies from country to country, as the ability to signal effectively between meetings is often determined by the nature of the decision - making process in a country. where the responsibility rests with a committee and decisionmaking is by consensus, as is the case