Gerald Keddy

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, certainly, this is an interesting debate and it is one in which all Atlantic members want to participate. Beyond the huffing, puffing and blowing their straw houses down by the members of the Liberal Party, there are some questions here that need to be defined.

I say to the member for Avalon, Nova Scotia has a different situation than Newfoundland. I appreciate his explanation that the Atlantic accord is there for Newfoundland and will remain there for Newfoundland. If at some time Newfoundland decides to opt in to the new equalization formula, it would have every ability to do that.

However, if Nova Scotia stays in the old formula and if it stays in the Atlantic accord, it will reap a benefit of $57 million. If it opts into the new plan, it will reap a benefit of $95 million. Nova Scotia has a different offshore reserve than Newfoundland and Labrador. It is a totally different situation.

If the people of Nova Scotia had two choices and one choice was better, would they not take the choice on the new equalization program?

[Business of Supply, March 22nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, let us be clear that what is on the table is a new plan for Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, if they care to take it, and the rest of Canada. But what is also on the table for Nova Scotia is the Nova Scotia-Canada offshore accord exactly as it was negotiated under the former government in 1982 by the provincial government in Nova Scotia and in 1986 by the Buchanan government in Nova Scotia. It is exactly the same plan. If that is the best plan for Nova Scotia, the plan that the Liberals signed, then it should take that plan.

I am here to say it is not the best plan because the new plan offers $95 million more in equalization payments to Nova Scotia. It offers $112 million in tax relief to Nova Scotians. The Liberals can obfuscate and disenfranchise as much as they want, but the reality is the new plan is better. If the Nova Scotia government decides it wants to take the old plan for some long term planning reasons, it has that option.

[Points of Order, March 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, during a discussion in the House, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was speaking and the member for Timmins—James Bay made a very unparliamentary comment. We are talking about parliamentary language in this place. I would offer the member for Timmins—James Bay the opportunity to stand and apologize, first to the minister and second to the House.

[Fisheries, February 26th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, on Friday past, instead of contributing to second reading debate or even taking a position on a new Fisheries Act, the new Liberal fisheries critic moved a hoist amendment.

Why? He said it was to allow further consultation and to answer “so many questions”.

Parliamentary procedure states:

The adoption of a hoist amendment is tantamount to defeating the bill by postponing its consideration. Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement period has elapsed.

Here is what the Liberal critic intends to prevent: real accountability of a minister to Canadians; giving provinces and fishers a real say in the decisions that affect them; strengthened fish habitat protection; and a fair and deterrent sanctions regime.

The Liberals had 13 years to consult. They just did not get it done. Somehow it is hard to believe they just need another six months.

[Income Tax Amendments Act, 2006, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned John Diefenbaker. Whenever I think of John Diefenbaker, I think of a Canadian prime minister who decided that Canadians needed a bill of rights. I think of a Canadian prime minister who was the first prime minister in the history of this country to give the vote to first nations. That is what I think about: real, honest to goodness, forward moving ideas from a Conservative prime minister.

I take exception to the hon. member's comments about a $42 billion debt. It was not a $42 billion debt. The debt, we all know, was much higher than that. It was the deficit, and $38 billion of that belonged to the previous Liberal government. That $4 billion increase in deficit, at a time when all governments were running deficits, was also at a time when this country had 19% interest rates. It was a ferocious time, a terrible time to be in business.

They were tough times. The previous Conservative government moved forward on a number of issues to bring this country out of the hole it was in at that time. It signed the free trade agreement with the United States, which was totally misrepresented and fought against by the Liberals. It brought in the GST to help finance debt reduction in this country and allowed the previous government to actually get rid of that deficit.

What is more, that $42 billion deficit was at a time when we did not cut transfer payments to the provinces. We did not cut payments for education and we did not cut health care. We did not get rid of the deficit on the backs of ordinary hard-working Canadians.

[Delegated Legislation, February 21st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Are we speaking to the bill, to the gist, to the thrust of Bill C-45, or are we speaking on debate about the ability of the bill to come to the House? My understanding is we are speaking to the bill.

[Juno Beach Centre, February 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Juno Beach Interpretation Centre in Normandy, France is an excellent facility that commemorates the role and the sacrifice of Canada's military during the second world war.

A group of World War II veterans formed the Juno Beach Association and with their president, Garth Webb, they were the driving force behind the creation of the centre.

It is acknowledged as a forum for learning and building awareness of the role of Canada in the world.

Increased demand has created financial challenges for the centre. What is the government doing to assist in the operation of the only facility in Europe where Canada commemorates the second world war?

[Criminal Code, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have to take exception to the comments made by my colleague from the Liberal Party that the views of the Conservative Party are somehow radical or extreme and he just used terms like “hollow”, “empty” and “jingoism”. Quite frankly, that is very unparliamentary language from a member who has been in this House long enough to know better. I do not understand how jailing dangerous offenders in order to keep them off the streets somehow affects the rights of Canadians. The other question I have is one of the Liberal record of 13 years where the Liberals did nothing on this subject--

[Petitions, February 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to present a petition today that was distributed across Canada by Edna Budden and her group of volunteers.

The petition calls upon Parliament to enact legislation to include exercise gym fees as a deductible tax credit under the medical expense tax credit of the Income Tax Act.

I have over 30,000 signatures piled up here, from coast to coast and from every town and major city in Canada. We owe a great debt of gratitude to people like Edna Budden and her volunteers who want to express their opinion to the Government of Canada. It is important for those individuals to know that the government is listening.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this afternoon and for the life of me, I do not understand where the Liberal members and the NDP members are coming from.

Since 1867, there has been inequality on reserve in Canada. For the first time we have a government that is willing to take action and give women on reserve property rights. I do not understand how we need to study this any more, how we need to look at this, how we have to somehow finance it. When we give people rights, they will take charge of their own lives. When they do not have rights, they cannot take charge of their own lives.

It was a Conservative government in 1957 that gave first nations the vote. Previous to that they did not have that, and I am sure at the time the Liberals said the same thing, that we needed to study this because they may not be ready to have the vote.

I suggest that first nations women are ready to have some rights and they are very long overdue.