Gerald Keddy

[Strengthening Aviation Security Act, October 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to rise in the House today and refute a number of the things the hon. member is saying. I listened as closely as I could. Most of his statement was 99% incorrect or not factual, so it was very difficult to listen really closely.

There is little basis in fact on what he said. There is little resemblance to reality.

The reality is this: When we became government, we changed the way we dealt with Americans. We have a respectful, straight-up relationship that was not there under the previous government that this individual was a member of.

An example of that is the fact that we took a long-standing trade irritant called softwood lumber and we settled that issue. We had a recent trade irritant called buy American and we settled that issue. We settled that because we have a stand-up, upfront, respectful relationship that you folks over there could have done any time you were in power for 13 years.

[Opposition Coalition, October 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, unbelievably, this week we learned that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition is alive and as strong as ever. The Liberal leader has long been in favour of the coalition and has said he is “prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government”. Yet now, the leader of the Bloc brags that he is the “driving force” behind it.

The fact that the coalition's policies include introducing massive tax hikes to pay for a 45-day work year and other measures that would put our economy at risk is troubling, but most troubling of all is the fact that the admitted driving force of the coalition is led by a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada.

Thankfully our Conservative government, led by the Prime Minister, is committed to a united Canada and to policies that will protect, not kill, our fragile economic recovery.

[October 7th, 2010]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I cannot quite understand for the life of me where the hon. member is coming from, where he gets all his information, where the tinfoil is too thin and the conspiracy theories are flying left, right and centre.

I want to be totally respectful because we do share a common interest. We are both Leafs fans and he made an analogy to that in his question. I do not want to continue this on too long because the season opener is tonight. They are playing the Habs and no one would want to miss that, so I will bring this to a close.

I can honestly say that the member's new-found interest in dredging Sydney Harbour quite amazes me. The member's party sat in government for 13 years and refused to even consider dredging Sydney Harbour. He did not sit there for 13 years but his government did. I have been here since 1997 and during that time the only consistent advocate for the dredging of Sydney Harbour has been the MLA for Cape Breton North, Cecil Clarke.

[October 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I do have to say that I am a little surprised that the member would raise this issue this evening. I am also surprised that it even made it to the late show because, of course, the late show is supposed to be for questions that were not answered in the House, and this question was very clearly answered in the House. The minister answered it very clearly and the hon. member decided not to hear the answer.

At the risk of repeating myself, I will answer it again. However, one question needs to be asked here, and the question specifically was on the dredging of Sydney Harbour, so the question does need to be asked, since the member got off on the tar ponds. I will say that it was a Conservative government that finally started the process of cleaning up the tar ponds.

However, with regard to the dredging of Sydney Harbour, one need only look at the 13 years that the member's government was in power to see that it never even considered dredging Sydney Harbour. If it ever gets dredged, I am sure it will be a Conservative government that does that as well.

I do thank the member for his question because it gives me an opportunity to come here tonight and perhaps straighten out some of the misunderstanding around this issue.The government recognizes there is a lot of interest. I have met with a number of individuals from Cape Breton on Sydney Harbour, so we recognize that there is a lot of interest around dredging Sydney Harbour. We also know that it is a complex and costly undertaking that requires the involvement of all levels of government, municipal, provincial and federal, as well as the private sector.

The Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has had a very productive meeting with representatives from the province, and he will continue to work with them and any other stakeholders involved.

I would remind the member opposite, however, that our government has made historic and unprecedented investments in Cape Breton, and this is outside of the tar ponds, which was our government's initiative. We have 14 projects through the community adjustment fund worth $6 million, 41 projects through the recreational infrastructure Canada fund worth $2.9 million, 64 projects in the innovative community fund worth $22.2 million and $2.6 million investment through the Atlantic innovation fund. When leveraged with other levels of government and private investment, this becomes $4.5 million. I could go on and on.

What should be clear to the member opposite is that while the Liberals are busy playing politics with this issue, on this side of the House we are trying to get things done.

[Opposition Coalition, October 6th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition is alive and well.

In a book released this week, the leader of the Bloc congratulates himself not only on being the “driving force” behind the coalition, but also for secretly scheming with the NDP on its creation before it was sprung on a shocked nation. The Bloc leader also makes clear that his party is a full participant in the coalition. In fact, not only is the Bloc a full coalition partner with the Liberals and the NDP, it was, and continues to be, at its very heart.

The Bloc leader also reminds Canadians that coalition denials cannot be trusted. It misled Canadians in 2008 and it will mislead them today.

However, we know that Canadians will never accept a coalition led by a man who said that America was his country, in which the NDP would manage the economy and one that includes a party whose sole objective is the breakup of Canada.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the NDP talk about free trade, and I appreciate the intervention by my hon. colleague. This the reality, and it is quite simple. That party has never supported a trade agreement. Free trade, fair trade, it all means no trade to the NDP members. They are not interested in jobs and opportunities for Canadians. They are not interested in raising the standard of living for their fellow Canadians. They are interested in keeping everyone in poverty and in the dark. That way those members get a host of people who actually believe that misinformed and ill-informed rhetoric. The only thing worse than the misinformation and the rhetoric is the condescension and the patronizing tone that delivers it.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone in this place would recognize that the member's intervention was in stark contrast to much of what we have heard from the NDP and from the Bloc Québécois. I applaud him for the fact that he is willing to discuss this in a reasonable and intelligent manner. He contributes in a positive way at committee as well.

First, we have to get this to committee. We have to take a much more thorough and indepth look at it. I think we are all satisfied to do that.

However, what I do not understand is why the NDP members would put a hoist motion onto this trade agreement. They do not support any trade agreement, so it is no surprise they do not support this one. However, a hoist motion effectively kills the bill. It does not just set it aside for a period of time. As anti-trade as that group is, I do not understand why those members would want to kill the bill.

[Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, September 30th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments, and quite frankly, I disagree with just about everything he said.

I do not understand why his party would not want to trade with a country that handles about 5% of the world's trade through the Panama Canal and that is an automatic partner for our Atlantic and Pacific gateways. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that has an immediate $5.2 billion in infrastructure with the widening of the Panama Canal. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that is the gateway to 34 more countries and economies in Central and South America and the Caribbean. I fail to understand why it would not want to trade with a country that is democratically elected and is looking to improve the position and status of its citizens.

[International Trade, September 27th, 2010]

Again, Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's interest in this subject.

The free trade agreement with the European Union is an extremely important agreement. It is also a modern agreement, a very comprehensive agreement that we have signed with the European Union.

The point is very clear. The provinces and the municipalities are involved in the negotiations. However, we will conduct the negotiations at the negotiating table, not on the floor of Parliament or on the front pages of newspapers or magazines.

[International Trade, September 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in this time of economic uncertainty the government is working to open new doors for Canadian businesses and to help create jobs in Canada.

In particular, the comprehensive trade agreement with the European Union has the potential to boost the Canadian economy by $12 billion. The provinces and territories are participating directly in the negotiations in areas that fall in whole or in part under their jurisdiction.

Canada and the EU had a positive and productive fourth round of negotiations in July. Canada will conduct its negotiations at the negotiating table, not in—