Gerald Keddy

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I thank the hon. member for his comments and, in particular, his discussion on a rules-based dispute mechanism. The word “egregious” was used in the House earlier by a member from the NDP, and I can say there have been no more outrageous and misleading statements than the ones about a dispute mechanism. I very much appreciate how the member broke that down to its lowest common denominator and explained it, because there has been a lot of misinformation. These debates seem to become the realm of misinformation.

I would like his comments on the problem that we ran into at the WTO where we failed to sign wide-ranging, multilateral trade agreements, where we had become stalled and stymied at the WTO and, therefore, forced into looking for bilateral agreements.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I have a question for the hon. member. Since Quebec is at the table along with the other provinces, since the territories are involved in the discussions and negotiations and since we have the support of the municipalities to pursue this comprehensive economic agreement, why would he not trust his own negotiators to negotiate in good faith on behalf of Quebec and the other provinces?

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, this is an important debate and certainly one that needs to be held in the House.

I want to discuss a couple of points the hon. member made, and I do not want to spend a lot of time on it because we have answered it. We will defend supply management and the very principle of it, which is farmers get their cost of production plus a profit. This is a principle that most of us understand, and it is one of the few agriculture sectors in Canada in which that actually occurs. We are very supportive of it and always have been. We have defended and will continue to defend supply management.

However, let us not forget about the rest of the agriculture sector in Canada that has a lot at stake in these negotiations as well. There is the potential of a $3 billion increase in agricultural exports to the EU. In the beef sector, the pork sector, the oil seeds sector and the processed food sector, there is tremendous potential for an increase for agriculture across Canada, from coast to coast, while we continue to protect supply management.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the fact that the member is saying he is going to support trade, and I certainly would hope that he will be very willing to support this particular trade agreement.

Going back to supply management for one second, we have to ask ourselves what the Europeans would have to gain by getting access to a market of 35 million people for dairy and opening up a market of 450 million people? What would they have to gain?

They have some interest in some specific areas, but they are not interested in wiping out supply management. They are interested in a number of others.

[Economic Negotiations with the European Union, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I do not quite know where to start my question for the hon. member, so I will start by simply correcting the record on a number of things the hon. member said.

Certainly we have protected supply management since we formed government and we have defended supply management in discussions and negotiations around the world. I have met with dairy farmers several times about this agreement. They have not expressed any shock or fear that somehow we are going to negotiate supply management away. As a matter of fact, they have been complimentary on the way that we have held our negotiations and have been very careful in our manoeuvring with the European Union.

On common agricultural policy, the European Union is in the process of changing its common agricultural policy. At this time it is in debate and in a state of flux. That is the reason it is not on the table. As far as geographical indicators go, there are some geographical indicators that we have concerns about. We have some geographical indicators in Canada that we would certainly like to see protected, but the Europeans have much more they want protected than we do. We are in a much better position at the negotiating table than they are.

[Product Safety, December 14th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last night the Senate voted in favour of Bill C-36, the Canadian consumer product safety bill. This important legislation will give us the tools to adequately protect Canadians and their loved ones. It replaces a law that was over 40 years old and now enables us to stand on a level playing field with our trading partners. It will protect us from unsafe products.

Part of the future of our health care system is passing good legislation. Although the bill, as well as its predecessor, passed through the House with the support of all parties, the Liberal senators consistently voted against it.

As they did last year at this time, all 36 Liberal senators who were present in the chamber for the vote last night stood and voted against it. Unbelievably, they voted against the health and safety of Canadians. Worse yet, they voted against consumer and product safety for our children at Christmas.

[Aerospace Industry, December 9th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is committed to protecting the 80,000 high-quality and well-paying jobs in the Canadian aerospace industry.

That is why we joined the Canadian aerospace companies as they sought to expand Canada's role in the global F-35 program. Canadian industry has shown that it can provide best value and excellent quality which has already resulted in more than $350 million in contracts for production work with much more to come.

Communities across Canada will see job-creating economic benefits thanks to the F-35 program. Every dollar invested in this program has the potential to gain $1.33 in return. These benefits will translate into direct investment in the Canadian economy and create Canadian jobs.

If it were up to the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition, it would cancel the joint strike fighter program which would cost thousands of jobs in our aerospace sector.

[International Trade, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has written to his counterpart in Panama asking that they undertake their obligations. Indeed, the Government of Panama has made a commitment to undertake the obligations for tax information sharing within the OECD.

[International Trade, December 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, our government's aggressive free trade agenda is opening strategic markets in the Americas, including Panama.

Canada and Panama recognize that creating jobs and opportunity depends upon free enterprise and free trade. This free trade agreement will help business and workers expand market opportunities and promote prosperity and job creation in both countries.

[Foreign Investment, December 3rd, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni for his knowledge, interest and expertise on this file.

I, too, read the report, unlike the members opposite. I am pleased to say it is another example of the results produced by our government's commitment to make Canada a top destination for foreign investment.

That is why we push for such things as the lowest taxes on new business investments of any major economy. In addition to this, Canada has weathered the global economic downturn, with the lowest debt of any major economy, the lowest deficit-—