Gerald Keddy

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Kelowna—Lake Country for his hard work on the trade committee and for his support for this piece of legislation.

My question for the hon. member is extremely straightforward.

We heard from dozens of witnesses at committee. When I listened to the member for Burnaby—New Westminster speak, I would swear that no one attended trade committee on this important subject, but that is far from the truth. We have had 31 committee meetings. Nearly 100 individuals have testified. Eighteen of those witnesses have actually testified twice and another seven have testified three times.

I would ask the hon. member if there is any more to the NDP opposition to this bill, or has that party simply taken an ideological position and refused to allow democracy to prevail and vote on this piece of legislation?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, June 7th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Kings—Hants for his support of the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement. I certainly thank him for his intervention on behalf of human rights in Colombia, because it has allowed this bill, quite frankly, to move forward.

I know that the hon. member was in the House when the NDP member was speaking. Beyond the fact that the NDP has never supported a free trade agreement at any time, in the current Parliament or in any other Parliament, part of what really bothers me about the NDP approach to this particular piece of legislation is that there has been some fundamental testimony at committee that has misled the committee.

I have one example. The hon. member was there, and I would ask him to recall it.

The NDP member in this place came into committee and said that there had been a massacre of 12 Awa citizens, indigenous people in Colombia, who had been murdered by the government. We later found out that they had not been murdered by the government. They had been murdered by the FARC, the socialist insurrection in the jungle. We still have not had that corrected. It has not been corrected at committee, nor has it been apologized for.

That is the type of opposition we have. I wonder if he would want to draw some comparisons from that.

[The Economy, June 4th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Statistics Canada reported this morning that 24,700 new jobs were created in May, the fifth straight month of job gains.

Canada's continued job creation is further proof that Canada's economic action plan is working. May represents the eighth month of job gains in the past 10 months. In fact, since July of last year, Canada has created nearly 310,000 new jobs.

With numbers like this, it is not surprising that the influential magazine, The Economist, recently called Canada “an economic star”. It is encouraging to see Canada's economy on the right track, thanks to our government's actions.

Nonetheless the global recovery remains fragile. That is why we need to fully implement Canada's economic action plan. I encourage all members in this chamber to support Canada's economic action plan.

[The Economy, June 1st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's economy is leading the way and growing stronger, thanks to Canada's economic action plan.

Yesterday, Statistics Canada announced that Canada's economy grew by 6.1% in the first quarter of 2010. This represents the strongest quarterly rate of economic growth in a decade.

Highlights from the quarter showed that consumer spending is up, thanks to our tax relief for Canadian families and that business investment is up, thanks to our strong support for job creation.

Since last July our plan has helped create nearly 285,000 new jobs. Last week the OECD said that Canada's economy shines, and both the OECD and the IMF predict our economic growth will lead all G7 countries both this year and next.

While our plan is helping our country lead the way on jobs and growth, experts say the Liberal leader's tax hikes would kill almost 400,000 jobs. Simply put, Canada just cannot afford the Liberal or the NDP tax and spend approach.

[The Economy, May 31st, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a pleasure to rise in the House today to speak in support of the motion by my colleague from Calgary Centre. It allows me to reiterate that our government fully agrees that international trade and investment are vital to Canada's long-term growth and prosperity. Canada is a trading nation and Canadians have long participated in global commerce as exporters, as importers, as investors, and as those looking for investors and partners to help them grow, innovate and prosper.

Foreign direct investment has traditionally played and continues to play a significant role in Canada's economy. From British Columbia to Newfoundland and Labrador, foreign investment brings many benefits that help our businesses and communities build competitive advantage in high-value industries of the future. Foreign businesses operating here are major contributors to our economy. In fact, the level of foreign direct investment in Canada is equivalent to over 30% of Canada's annual output, or gross domestic product.

These companies are responsible for 45% of the merchandise exports, 27% of corporate profits and about one-quarter of all business non-residential investment in Canada, contributing directly to our economic growth and long-term prosperity. Foreign investors in Canada include household names like Microsoft, Nokia, Samsung, and Honda, which has had operations in Canada for over 40 years. These and hundreds of other foreign investors in Canada are creating jobs and opportunity for Canadians across many different industries and sectors.

Even before Canada fell victim to the global recession, with advantage Canada and the global commerce strategy the government has been striving to make Canada a destination of choice for global business and investment. We have focused on reducing taxes, paying down debt, fostering skills development and investing in transportation, research and innovation infrastructure, all in the name of making Canada a more competitive place to succeed globally.

These measures are helping to ensure that Canada's businesses are better able to compete in the global economy and contribute to Canada's appeal as a place for foreign investors to invest, grow, innovate and create jobs. The government's efforts in this regard are already paying dividends for Canadians. As the global economy has navigated its most serious downturn in a generation, Canadians too have been affected.

However, our country has shown remarkable resilience and strength in the face of these troubles. Our banking system, for example, remained strong throughout the crisis. None of our banks failed and none required public bailouts. Many of our banks are growing at an aggressive rate. This certainly would not be possible without a strong, stable and well-regulated financial system, cited as the most stable in the world by the World Economic Forum for the past two years in a row.

Canada's strong fiscal record has also proven to be a key strength. Because our government paid down debt in good times, we have had the flexibility to introduce Canada's economic action plan package to spur growth, create jobs and position our country for a strong recovery. Today, as many of our counterparts around the world face enormous debt loads, Canada stands to reap the benefits of a G7-leading debt to GDP ratio. We are in a strong position to return to fiscal balance more quickly than many of our counterparts and we are optimistic that we can do so while maintaining the tax advantage we have been building over the past few years.

The fact is that Canada has navigated the global economic downturn better than anyone in the G7. The experts at the International Monetary Fund are predicting that we will lead the G7 in growth in the next few years. The OECD is saying that Canada's economic recovery grew 6.2% in the first quarter of 2010. That bears repeating. Canada's economy grew 6.2% in the first quarter of 2010.

I am sure that all members in this place, even the opposition members, take great interest in those numbers and lay the tribute at the feet of the government where it belongs, quite frankly. I am sure that all members in the House would share that feeling.

We are well ahead of the 1.9% overall growth of the other G7 countries. We are optimistic that such growth will translate into G7-leading job growth, as was the case in the years leading up to the global downturn.

The world is taking notice of Canada's first rate economic performance. In fact, the business experts at the Economist Intelligence Unit are saying that Canada will be the best place to do business in the next five years.

Indeed, Canada has lots of advantages to offer foreign investors. In financial and business services, we have one of the largest and soundest financial sectors in the world. In life sciences, we host some of the most influential clinical scientists in the world and we offer one of the most generous research and development tax incentives.

In the auto sector, we are one of the world's largest exporters of automobile products. We are also home to world leaders in plastics and chemicals, digital media, aerospace, renewable energy and agri-foods.

I have more to say—

[G8 and G20 Summits, May 27th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, in just under a month, Canada will be hosting the world's most influential leaders at the G8 and G20 summits. Canada hosting two major summits back to back is unprecedented and we are honoured to host the world leaders and showcase Canada on the world stage.

We are on track to host secure G8 and G20 summits. We have a comprehensive security plan developed by Canada's best experts in the field, but what does the Liberal leader say? He said that he was “kind of ashamed” of Canada.

I can assure all members that on this side of the House we are not ashamed of our country. In fact, we are proud of Canada and I look forward to this unique opportunity to continue our leadership on the world stage.

This is an opportunity that all Canadians, even the opposition Liberals, can be proud of.

[Firearms Registry, May 13th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party continues its blatant culture of misrepresenting the facts on the gun registry. I pointed out earlier this week that the Liberals falsely Photoshopped the badge of the Ottawa Police Service onto the shoulder of a serving American police officer to make it look as if Canadian police officers support the Liberal leader's forcing his MPs to support the wasteful and ineffective long gun registry.

The Liberal Party has no shame because it is continuing to use the photo of that American officer to promote its supposedly Canadian policy. The Liberal leader will stop at nothing, even deliberately trying to mislead Canadians in order to get his way.

Despite the Liberal leader's attempt to confuse Canadians, the choice is clear: MPs either vote to keep the ineffective Liberal long gun registry or they vote to scrap it. This latest tactic by the Liberal Party over the long gun registry shows once again that Liberals cannot be trusted to tell the truth about the ineffective long gun registry.

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, three minutes is not a lot of time to address all the problems in the fishery and to address a number of statements that have been made tonight. Some of those statements are try to correct the record.

This debate was about crab. It then expanded into the shellfish industry. There is a large shellfish industry, much of which we have not even addressed tonight. Certainly, for the lobster industry, I cannot stress enough the need to modernize the Fisheries Act and the industry. Fishermen who live in my riding are fishing a lobster licence on a 35-foot boot. They would sooner fish that licence on a 45-foot boat or a 55-foot boat, but they cannot because the act does not allow them to.

They have a groundfish licence. They are multi-species fishermen, which we have encouraged them to be. Their groundfish licence is on a 35-foot boat and because they cannot afford two boats, they also have to fish lobster on that boat. They fish 150 kilometres offshore. The previous government would not change that act. We cannot change it without their support.

However, that is not really the point. I want to finish on Tim Rhyno's licence. His name has been brought up a couple of times in the House by members in absolutely nothing less than a drive-by smear. He owns his licence legally, morally and ethically. The reality is the story has never been told.

Fist, two people did the science fishery. Tim Rhyno was one. The other person got a licence. Second, there were 17 licences granted in 2003. The first person got his licence. The second licence was put off until 2004. That was Tim Rhyno's licence. What happened to that licence? The minister of fisheries at the time, Minister Thibeault, granted the first person a licence and told Mr. Rhyno, in writing, that he would get his licence the following year.

The following year came and the following year went. Somewhere or another on the other side of the House in the Liberal Party, there was political interference on that licence and he was not granted it. I do not know exactly who interfered, but I have my suspicions. I think we can take a look at the people who have been asking the questions.

Further to that, it has been said in this place that he did not win his appeal. That is absolutely false. On July 8, 2005, he went to the appeal board. Mr. Rhyno won the appeal, yet again, it was recommended by the minister that the licence not be allowed. My point is simple. The individual has been used unfairly. He has asked to come to committee. The committee asked for him to come and then withdrew its request.

I suggest the committee bring Mr. Rhyno to committee, not in a kangaroo court in Sydney or any other place, but in Ottawa—

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I have two questions if I have time. My first question is quite simple. I have been in the House for a number of years. I represent a tremendously strong fishing area in South Shore—St. Margaret's. Part of the challenge of trying to regulate the fisheries for the current minister, the previous minister and ministers before that has been the fact that we do not have a modern fisheries act.

We tried in the last Parliament to modernize the Fisheries Act. Of course, the Liberals preached doom and gloom. They swore that would be the end of the fishery as we know it. So this is the reality for the shellfish industry. We have a 19th century act trying to control a mid-20th and late 20th century resource, primarily lobster and crab, for an export market in the 21st century. How do we square that and make that all work? Because that is what we inherited from the Liberals. That is what they refused to change.

How will we ever, under the existing act, have a fishery that works in the 21st century?

[ATLANTIC SHELLFISH INDUSTRY, May 12th, 2010]

Mr. Chair, I cannot believe that the opposition is here for the debate this late at night and cannot get up on a question or comment for the hon. member. He has such great answers that I guess they are bereft of anything more to say.

My question is quite simple. I know that he is concerned about the situation with crab and for New Brunswick fishermen. It is a dire situation and we all understand that, but there are no easy answers. The Liberals would seem to think that if they give money to their friends anytime they get in trouble, maybe they will vote for them again, but the reality is we have a difficult situation with the crab. The minister is on the right track.

Would the member like to add anything to that?