Ed Fast

[Natural Resources, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, they are ragging the puck again.

It is critical that Canada build the pipelines required to get its natural resources to market. However, instead of allowing independent scientific experts to do their job, the Prime Minister and his secretary are playing energy politics at the PMO. After years of pipeline applications reviewed by the independent NEB, the Liberals are adding further obstacles by creating a new, highly politicized panel to review these projects. These games are costing hard-working Canadians their jobs, so why are the Liberals putting Canadian firms at a competitive disadvantage within the global marketplace?

[Natural Resources, May 17th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal excuses for not approving pipelines are getting sillier and sillier. On February 23, the National Energy Board appeared before the environment committee. When asked about the impact of upstream greenhouse gas emissions on the Trans Mountain project, it testified, “The board found that they were not directly related to the project they were assessing”.

The Liberals are replacing the independence of this board with a highly politicized and unaccountable politically appointed process. Why are the Liberals so opposed to resource development?

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. In follow-up to a number of motions that have bounced back and forth in the House today, I hope you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Tuesday, May 17, 2016, and on Wednesday, May 18, 2016, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment but no later than midnight, at which time the House shall adjourn to the next sitting day.

[International Trade, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as the globe-trotting trade minister embarrassed herself on American late night talk shows at taxpayer expense, Canada's trade performance was floundering. In March, exports plummeted by almost 5% and Canada suffered a record-setting $3.4-billion trade deficit. With that kind of performance, Canadians would be better off if the minister simply stayed at home.

There is, however, one thing she can do to improve Canada's trade performance and that is to support the largest trade agreement in the world.

Will the Liberals now support the TPP?

[International Trade, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has claimed time and again that he is a big supporter of international trade. Yet much like the NDP, every time the Liberals are asked to walk the talk, they are missing in action.

The TPP is the largest trade agreement in the world. Conservatives concluded negotiations over seven months ago, yet the Prime Minister will not tell us whether he will support the agreement. Canada must be a leader, not a laggard, on trade.

When will the Prime Minister finally tell Canadians whether or not he supports the TPP?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a question about the mitigation that the previous Conservative government promised to the supply-managed sector.

The United States is well known for exploiting loopholes in trade laws to try to get products into Canada that should not be in Canada. For example, there is the ultra-diafiltered milk issue, the spent fowl issue, and the sauce-pack issue for the chickens.

We had made clear commitments to the supply-managed sector that we were going to plug those holes. One of those holes we plugged already was the pizza-kit issue. That was under our previous Conservative government and the industry was very happy with that.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government has not yet committed to implementing those mitigation measures. I am wondering if the minister can now, in the House, tell us that she will actually move forward to address the concerns of our supply-managed farmers.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and for the work she is doing as the new Minister of International Trade.

I just want to disabuse the member of one thing. I met with Flavio Volpe well before trade negotiations on TPP were completed. In fact, it was Canada that walked away from the table in Maui exactly because the auto part outcome was not to our liking and because the supply management outcome was not to our liking. We walked away, and then when we went back to Atlanta to finalize the agreement, we got a superior outcome on both of those.

I did take note of the fact that the member was praising NAFTA. I think what she is doing is engaging in revisionist history. The member may remember that back in 1993 it was Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin who actually threatened to tear up NAFTA, the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement, over which an election was fought in 1988. The Liberals vociferously opposed that agreement, yet today here they are praising those very agreements that Conservative governments negotiated.

I remind the member that CETA was negotiated by a Conservative government, and that TPP was negotiated by a Conservative government. In fact, of all the trade agreements Canada has with countries around the world, 48 of them were negotiated by Conservative governments and only three were negotiated by Liberal governments.

My question for the member is this. As she moves forward with ratifying TPP, which I hope she will do, will she be a leader rather than following the United States' lead? Will she be a leader rather than a laggard on trade?

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals and the Prime Minister would know all about photo ops.

What is the bottom line when we open up new markets around the world for Canadian exports, trade and investments? What is the measure we are looking for? It is job creation. Who led the G7 in job creation over the 10 years this Conservative government was in power? We did because trade creates jobs, and the more we open up opportunities for Canada to trade, the more jobs we will create.

Earlier I quoted in my comments the appalling record on exports under the Liberal government. Over six months there has been a precipitous decline in Canadian exports abroad. What is the trade minister doing? She is spending time appearing on the Bill Maher show and embarrassing Canadians. That is not the way to do it. A lot of work was done under our Conservative government. We work all around the world, and our record proves that.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in the House understands the member's orientation on trade and investment. She is opposed to it. She always has been and always will be.

With respect to the member's comments on investment treaties, the reason we signed an investment treaty with China was to protect Canadian companies when they invested in China. I have a clear example of where a Canadian company has invested in China. A mining company invested a lot of money in prospecting and exploring, and it finally hit a motherlode. It was a gold find. After it had done that, it applied for a production permit. Guess what happened to that Canadian company? The local and state governments said that they preferred to have local Chinese companies and would not issue it a production licence. They are still working on that. That is exactly the kind of case we want to protect Canadians against. If there is a dispute like that, it is lifted into the international context where there is an international arbitration by arbitrators who are fair and impartial and who will make a decision that is fair and protects the interests of Canadians when billions and billions of dollars are invested in a foreign marketplace.

Sadly, that member does not get it.

[Business of Supply, May 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is actually $29 trillion. This agreement is so significant because it represents close to 40% of global trade. Imagine Canada being on the outside looking in and how much that would cost us.

With respect to the question about these non-tariff barriers, often we refer to them as SPS, sanitary and phytosanitary standards, that are applied, for example, in the food and agriculture industries, every country around the world establishes standards, rules and regulations for the quality and the health of their food products. We want to ensure that what we eat is healthy.

However, those standards and rules can be manipulated to act as protectionist measures. Therefore, they are not applied for the purposes for which they were first created; they are applied in a way that discriminates against foreign products. Free trade is all about not discriminating against foreign products. The beef industry suffered greatly when the door to South Korea was closed. It was our Conservative government that moved forward and opened that market again, and now we have the free export of beef into that marketplace. Our cattle and beef folks are very happy with those deals and also with the TPP. We are opening up huge markets within the Asia-Pacific region.