John Cannis

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, my good friend, for pointing out the statistics based on the question I asked the minister, because I felt his response, and I say this respectfully, was inaccurate with the statistics.

Nevertheless, this type of legislation, or any type of legislation, is an evolving process, such as legislation for the Juvenile Delinquents Act and the Young Offenders Act. Over the years, times change and circumstances change. We as the Liberal government updated the statute and brought changes, such as adult sentencing, reverse onus, et cetera.

My colleague pointed to the Quebec model, a model that works. For crime that occurs in British Columbia, as the member said, or in Manitoba or anywhere else, crime is crime. This is the big question Canadians are asking. Why can we not standardize, especially a system that has shown results?

Finally, the minister said that the people who recognized they were a danger to themselves asked for the legislation. Do we put them behind bars or do we offer treatment? Could he please elaborate on that?

[Sébastien's Law (Protecting the Public from Violent Young Offenders), March 19th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the minister's comments. Of course, I speak on behalf of the Liberal team on this side of the House when I assure him that we will do anything we can to ensure that our country, communities and families are safe.

I have one simply question. Stats continuously tell us that crime has been on a decline for a number of years. Does he have any specific statistics that he can share with us today, in terms of youth crime, violent crime or any types of crime, that we can discuss with our constituents?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I very much enjoyed listening to the member's comments. He talked about the investments to date. We went through our program review in the early 1990s. We talked about short-term pain for long-term gain.

In this specific case with what the government is doing, I am very concerned for the future. We agree with the Minister of Finance's statement when he said, “Deficits are a cancer; the accumulating total national debt progressively limits the government's freedom to act”. We agree with that. According to the government's graphs, the deficit is growing. It will start to drop in 2014-15. How will the government address this?

We worked very hard to reduce the debt. The government paid down part of the debt. By 2014-15, we will be $622 billion in debt. That is $122 billion from the day the Conservatives took over. How will they address that? To use the minister's words, it is going to limit the government in running this country.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, you are quite right. In the throne speech the government talks about abolishing the gun registry, so the member was right to speak to it.

The member talked about consultations, the police and so on. I have one question and one clarification when he pointed out that the Liberal Party was supporting it. He is inaccurate. We are not supporting the legislation to abolish the gun registry.

Our side stands and says that the police support it and the government stands and say that the police do not support it. Could the member clarify why the police associations do not come out with a clear statement stating that this is their position with no ambiguity in their response once and for all so Canadians know exactly where these associations stand?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, you are quite correct, because in the throne speech--

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary. There is one comment I want to make and one question I want to ask him.

With respect to health care, he talked about what the government did. What he is neglecting to say, and it is unfair, is that it provided nothing in any additional money. For the record, the money that is being transferred is the 2004-05 allocation of $56 billion by a Liberal government over a 10-year plan. He can even read the paper today. It confirms it.

He said that the government wants to keep more money in the hands of Canadians. I agree with him. We can do it by reducing taxes. I want to ask him a question about page 52. His Minister of Finance and Prime Minister said that taxing on jobs is a killer. We agree. That is why we were reducing EI benefits over so many years.

I will ask him to read page 52 of the budget. It shows that between 2000 and 2006, when the Liberals were in government, EI premiums were going down and then it kind of froze. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the government is going to be raising EI premiums to the tune of $13 billion. That is taking money out of people's pockets. How can he justify that?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, March 18th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary when she talked about creating jobs for youth, et cetera.

In the throne speech the Conservatives said, “as chair of G8 and G20 this year, our government”, meaning the Conservative government, “will lead the call for a globally coordinated approach to the withdrawal”, and I underline the word “withdrawal”, “of economic stimulus”.

The whole world is saying we have to invest so that jobs can be created to get us out of this downturn in which we find ourselves.

Yesterday, the Prime Minister said that the government was going to encourage stimulus spending, but the throne speech said the opposite.

Could the parliamentary secretary please clarify this confusion?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, with respect to our athletes, I agree with the hon. gentleman, and thanks to the Liberal government's own the podium program they did reach those goals.

The member talked about debt. Often when we ask questions about the budget, the Conservatives say, “Read the budget”. I have read the budget and I have the government's graph which says the debt today is $463 billion and by 2014-15 it is going to be $622 billion; that is $160 billion or so more. Either the government's graph is lying to me or I am lying to the member.

I have one simple question. He talked about the employers in his riding and several thousand employees. I hope they continue to grow and prosper like all Canadians.

However, on page 52 of the budget there is a steady decline in EI premiums between the period of 2000 and 2006-07, which was a Liberal administration. After that, for the next three years, it stayed steady.

According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in its words, the government is going to be increasing the EI premiums well over $13 billion, which in the finance minister's own words is a job killer, costing us over 200,000 jobs.

What does the member then, I ask, tell his employers and his employees who are going to be hit with one of the largest tax increases in Canadian history?

[THE BUDGET, March 9th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I was pleased that the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville talked about green technology and green jobs because in the 2008 election, the Conservatives almost destroyed a gentleman's reputation with misinformation because he was advocating green technology and green jobs. Now they have jumped on green technology and I am pleased to hear that.

I am also pleased that he has direct assistance in his riding. My riding of Scarborough Centre has a population of 127,000 people and has received nothing in direct assistance. Earlier on the gentleman from Essex talked about the tens of millions of dollars in his riding.

The Greek community in metropolitan Toronto is asking for $1 million for its first sports and cultural recreation centre and all the ministers said no, no, no. I asked them if they had anything against Greek Canadians.

The last question I will ask him is this. He talks about the debt and deficit. There is a chart here that shows the accumulated debt keeps going up. How does he justify that to Canadians?

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, since the member is new I want to give her a brief explanation of how Conservatives managed the economy.

In 2006, they inherited a $13.2 billion surplus, which carried over the following year to about $9 billion. Today, we find ourselves with a $56 billion deficit. When we add that up, it works out to over $70 billion in three and a half years that we have lost. That is really good management.

She talked about Clearwater and tourism. Why has her government punished the tourism industry? I was the parliamentary secretary when the Canadian Tourism Commission was created. It eliminated the GST rebate for tourists. The rebate helped tourism flourish. That is the first question.

She talked about how pleased she was with tax reductions. I want her dig back into her math class and tell me what is higher, 15% or 15.5%. Why I ask the question is as follows. We had the lowest tax rate of 15% for the average Canadian. In their budget, the Conservatives raised it to 15.5% and called it a tax reduction.

On page 52 of their budget, they say that they froze EI premiums. They have never dropped them but it says here that from 2000 to 2005 the rates were coming down. That was the Liberal administration. Then they froze them. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business says that over the next couple of years $30 billion in EI taxes will be slaughtered by the government.

I agree also with this statement, “It is one of those job killing taxes, a direct tax on employers and employees”, said by the Minister of Finance. Does she agree with that?