Rob Merrifield

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague and I listened to the comments of my colleagues across the way with regard to this FIPA, which really does protect and level the playing field between China and Canada.

It is interesting. When we were in Japan as a committee, and the last two colleagues who spoke were there, we asked Japan if it had a FIPA with China. Japan is China's largest trading partner, much larger than Canada, much larger than America. It said that it did not. We asked if it would sign a FIPA and it said it would love to, which would level the playing field and give protection for the Japanese in China and for Japanese investment. Has Japan been compromised with some of the investments in China? Yes, it has but it continues to work. Japan would love to have a FIPA that would allow it that protection that China has offered through this FIPA with Canada.

My hon. colleague was on the trip with us to Japan. Would he see this as a good thing not only for Canada but also for Japan?

[Business of Supply, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to my hon. colleague, who is a member of the trade committee, and I listen to him quite often at trade committee. His position on this issue and the position of the NDP is really quite astounding.

The position of the New Democrats on trade is really quite anti-trade, but when it comes to China, they are prepared to go against an agreement that would actually protect Canada's interests in China and not compromise Canada's interests. How they bend and twist it is really ideological.

When it comes to our colleagues in the Liberal Party, they too have an interesting perspective when it comes to trade. The Liberals seem to want to subsidize China. China can get along very well without subsidies, thanks very much, when it comes to taking them off the list with regard to tariff compromisation.

Getting back to the issue at hand, I ask my hon. colleague a question with regard to his comments. When we have signed 24 of these agreements with other countries around the world and when we are actually doing more trade with China than ever before—in fact, 24% more just in forestry alone in the last few years—why is it so wrong to have a deal with China that we have signed with 24 other countries when it is okay with these other 24 countries?

[Petitions, April 18th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, on behalf of the people of my riding, a petition calling on the government not to allow inequality of women's and girls' rights by sex-selective abortions.

The petition calls on the government to abhor this and to stop it at every opportunity in the future.

[Natural Resources, April 17th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay out some facts about Keystone. It is a fact that the Keystone pipeline will create thousands of badly needed jobs for Canada and America, especially while sequestration brings thousands of American vets home.

It is a fact that the U.S. state department has declared the new route of the pipeline to be environmentally sound. It is a fact that the Nebraska governor supports the pipeline. It is a fact that two thirds of all Americans support it as well. It is a fact that the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have voted to approve Keystone.

There are over 80 pipelines that currently cross the 49th parallel. The only thing that makes Keystone special is that radical environmentalists and Hollywood have chosen to make it their cause of the day. In light of all the facts, we are encouraged and we are hopeful that the President will do the right thing and approve Keystone.

While we are talking about facts, it is a fact that when my colleagues and I go to Washington, we go to create jobs for Canadians. The scariest fact is that when the Leader of the Opposition goes to Washington, he goes to kill Canadian jobs.

[Natural Resources, March 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, the oil sands are an absolutely incredibly important resource that creates thousands of jobs and growth right across this country. While the NDP leader attacks the growth in this sector and actually calls it a disease, the Conservative government keeps fighting for jobs in the building trades, jobs in manufacturing and jobs in the local economy.

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Can he update the House on the latest development in our government's efforts to create jobs and grow the economy in Canada's resource sector?

[Committees of the House, February 28th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, with a continuing desire to grow our economy and create more jobs for Canadians by way of international trade, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the sixth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade, a report of an economic partnership agreement between Canada and Japan. Japan is the third-largest economy in the world and, as such, very important to Canada.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Member for Papineau, November 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday we learned of deeply divisive and anti-Alberta comments from the Liberal critic for amateur sport. They were so bad that they were worse than his colleague's, who had to step down from his role as critic for natural resources. The minister pointed out last week that the member cannot possibly stand up for Canadian athletes who are a source of national identity and pride since his comments show that he fails to represent those values himself.

Can the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism update the House on our government's position on national unity?

[Liberal Party of Canada, November 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, our government continues to stand up for the interests of Albertans and all Canadians. Unfortunately, the Liberals do not.

My constituents were shocked to hear a top Liberal spokesman for natural resources tell us to go back to Alberta if we wanted to defend the interests of Albertans or the energy interests. The comments were so arrogant and unacceptable that the member had to step down from his role as critic.

However, it does not change the fact that the anti-Alberta attitude remains ingrained in the Liberal Party. In fact, in the last 24 hours it has been revealed that the anti-Alberta attitude within the Liberal Party is alive more now than ever before.

I need not remind my constituents of Trudeau's failed national energy program that devastated the economy and cost Albertans billions of dollars.

Our government is proud to defend Alberta's interests, especially against disastrous Liberal policies that have hurt Alberta in the past and would do the same in the future. God forbid that the Liberals ever get that chance.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, not only would their carbon tax be an absolute blowout, estimated at $21 billion, but with their anti-trade thing, now we are getting into serious money. If we got rid of NAFTA and all trade agreements, not only would it be an unbelievable black eye and message to the international community that our agricultural products are not the best in the world, which they are—the safest in the world and coveted by most of the world, along with our energy supply and on and on—but the amount of dollars that would be compromised would actually cripple this country. Canadians are too smart to buy this nonsense.

The opposition members are driven by ideology, based mainly on unions that are a little out of touch and self-serving. This is absolutely ridiculous. We cannot build the nation under that ideology. It is unfortunate that we have an opposition that is driven by ideology rather than actual facts and the reality that we are a trading nation and we have great optimistic opportunities as we move forward. We need to enhance and accelerate trade, not hamper it.

[Canada-Panama Economic Growth and Prosperity Act, November 7th, 2012]

We have heard for two and a half years that the reason the New Democrats are saying no to this is because of a tax haven in Panama. It was on a grey list, and it has moved from a grey list to a white list. My hon. colleague knows this. We heard it in testimony at the committee. He heard from the finance department that this is working and that there is a change with Panama. Panama has come a long way.

We could take two approaches. One approach is as we did with Jordan, where we sign an agreement to try to improve the labour situation and some of the corruption we potentially see in some of these countries. Or, we could just step aside and wait until they have their house completely in order. Our approach is to go in, engage and be able to bring them into a place that is much more positive. That is exactly where Panama is. It has gone from a grey list to a white list, and it is improving.

The hon. colleague knows full well that this is going to be worked out in this legislation, and that is the fact. The hon. colleague, if he were absolutely true to himself and to this House, would admit it.