Gerald Keddy

[Foreign Investment, October 29th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would have to disagree with the hon. member. The reality is that this treaty is similar to other treaties we have signed. It is designed to protect Canadian investors from discriminatory and arbitrary practices, and the rights and obligations of this treaty apply equally to both countries.

I think there is a point we could agree on, though, and that is the NDP position on trade. Recently, the NDP member for British Columbia Southern Interior wrote that trade agreements “threaten the very existence of our nation”. That is the NDP position. I think we would be in agreement.

[Foreign Affairs, October 23rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the treaty entitled “Agreement to Amend the Free Trade Agreement Between the Government of Canada and the Government of the Republic of Chile, Done at Santiago on 5 December 1996, as Amended, Between the Government of Canada and the Government of The Republic of Chile”, done at Santiago on April 16, 2012.

An explanatory memorandum is included with the treaty.

[International Trade, October 22nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP is simply wrong and is spreading false information. The reality is that our trade deficit narrowed in August. It did not increase in August.

The irony, however, is that the NDP's recklessness and irresponsible anti-trade agenda, which it would impose upon Canada, would put Canada's trade deficit to zero; not decrease it, but put it to zero.

Ever since the NAFTA, the NDP has opposed trade and it continues to oppose trade. What the NDP members need to do is explain to us how they are going to support trade.

We have an ambitious trade agenda. We look for their support.

[Government Appointments, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am always surprised that they do not want to hear the answer, because the answer is the same every time.

The public court records state that the commissioner found problems with the way that the public service ran its hiring process. However, they did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff. The matter is now before the courts.

Why is that not good enough for the hon. member?

[Government Appointments, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is pretty simple. This is not a political issue. The public court records—

[Treasury Board, October 17th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the hon. member's question, and the hon. member would know, number one, that this is not a political issue; number two, the public court record states that the commissioner found problems with the way the public service ran its hiring process but did not find any political interference by ministers or ministerial staff. He would also know that the matter is now before the courts.

[International Trade, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not have been paying attention, but this trade agreement is still being negotiated. These negotiations are still going on. Nothing has been decided at this point.

I would say that our government always thought to strike a balance between promoting innovation and job creation and ensuring that Canadians continue to have access to the affordable drugs that they need. I would finally say that the House can be assured that our government will not sign the agreement unless it is in the best interest of all Canadians.

[Government Appointments, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the Public Service Commissioner reported on this issue. He found problems with the way that the public service ran its hiring practice. That is no secret. Everybody in the House knows that. However, the commissioner did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff.

I realize the opposition would make this a political issue but it is not a political issue. The Public Service Commission has clearly stated that. In the meantime, this matter is before the courts.

[Government Appointments, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, this is within the purview of the Public Service Commission. The hon. member should listen to what the Public Service Commissioner had to say. He said very clearly that the commission had found problems with the way the Public Service ran the hiring process. He also clearly said that it did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff.

I want to know where the hon. member is getting his information because it is incorrect.

[Government Appointments, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I answered that question yesterday and the answer is the same today.

This is not a political issue. However, if the member wants to check the public court records, they state that the commissioner found problems with the way the public service ran its hiring process but did not find any political interference by ministers or political staff.

In the meantime, this matter is before the courts.