John Cannis

[Economic Recovery Act (stimulus), October 6th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to comments that were made outside the country, I will remind my good friend of the comments made by his leader with respect to Canada when he was outside the country. They were, indeed, shameful.

The parliamentary secretary said this is not a made in Canada recession. I want to ask him a question that many Canadians are asking me. A short three and a half years ago the reformed Conservative government inherited a $13.2 billion surplus. It now has a $56 billion deficit, for a total of close to $70 billion. Canadians are asking where it blew $70 billion and they are making the following comparison. The Progressive Conservative government of Brian Mulroney increased the deficit in nine years by approximately $21 billion. At this rate, the reformed Conservative government of today is blowing $70 billion every three years. If it governs as the Mulroney government did, in nine years we will be in a deficit of over $210 billion. Can he tell us where this money is going and how we are going to recover it?

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 5th, 2009]

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Speaker. There is a lot of merit in what he says. There is no question about it.

I would like to focus on my contribution to this debate. This trade agreement is multi-dimensional. We have talked about mining companies and forestry companies. We have talked about labour rights and human rights violations. We have talked about everything. My comments were focused primarily on keeping an open mind as we move toward voting on this piece of legislation.

We have to move forward with the thought in mind that it is not a perfect agreement, but it is the right direction for us to take. As we move along, we can make changes, a suggestion that my colleague has made as well.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, South Africa at that time was not doing very much and that is why there were sanctions. Colombia is moving aggressively and practically forward and that is why we need to engage with that country.

I thank the member for his comments with respect to the elections in Greece. If he follows his politics very closely he will understand that the PASOK party has evolved from the socialist party that it was 30-odd years ago to a modern, state-of-the-art, centre type of party.

The only difficulty I have is trying to understand why after 60 years the New Democratic Party keeps calling itself new.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, October 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee on international trade, I want to add my voice to this debate. A couple of years ago I had the privilege to chair the committee and now I am the vice-chair.

I just heard the NDP member say that they are not against trade. Earlier, the trade critic for the Liberal Party, the member for Kings—Hants, asked the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore to name one free trade agreement that the NDP supported. There was not one. Who is telling Canada and Colombia that they are prepared to support this no matter what the terms are?

We hear the debate at committee and in this House, but let me refer to some of the experiences we have had at committee and the witnesses we have heard and the comments that have been made, by the ambassador for Colombia, for example. The president of Colombia was here just before the recess. I had the privilege of chairing that committee meeting. The man sat there and opened his heart. He said, “We need help. We want to create terms and conditions whereby both our nations can benefit”. Trade does not benefit one side. It is not a one-way venue. It is two-ways.

As a nation we trade goods, services and technology. Why? We want to keep Canadians employed. We want to generate revenue so that we can invest in new technology, in post-secondary education, in research chairs, in new product lines, for example, so that not only can we export them, but we can use them here as well.

We received a letter from the house of representatives in the Republic of Colombia. For the record, I would like to read some of the comments with respect to this trade deal:

As members of the national legislative entity and the representatives of the people of Colombia, we consider that the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is a major factor in the establishment of stable, transparent scenarios for commerce and investment, which generate employment, allow for the improvement of living conditions of our citizens and blocking out the paths for drug trafficking.

This is very important also.

The Free Trade Agreement between Canada and Colombia is composed of a series of chapters in which the rules of engagement for trading goods and services and investment processes are determined--

The letter goes on. Another area of the letter to our Parliament states:

--as well as the Labor and Environmental Cooperation Agreements, allow us to assert that the conditions to strengthen the relations between Canada and Colombia are on the table, by means of instruments designed to contribute to the high and sustained growth of our economies by way of increasing exports, diversifying markets, increasing productive investments and generating employment.

It goes on, and then there is even better stuff, which hopefully will satisfy the NDP:

Likewise it is important to indicate that these instruments reinforce the commitments of Colombia regarding human rights and labor conditions creating suitable scenarios to improve the alternatives of our citizens, such as better working conditions and balance between trade and sustainable development.

We consider that supporting the approval and implementation of these instruments is a step in the right direction, for it will represent support for our nation in the challenges it faces regarding these sensitive issues, and the confirmation of our understanding in the defence of the fundamental rights of our citizens.

The letter goes on and on. The closing part is very important:

--as to the advance in the achievement of our goal to overcome poverty and generate appropriate conditions for the creation of stable and dignified employment, and to protect and guarantee fundamental rights.

It is signed by the Republic of Colombia house of representatives.

Colombia has gone in whichever way it can right now to try and improve. Earlier I asked in questions and comments what we should do as a nation. Should we stay away? Should we just say we will wait until Colombia gets its house completely in order, until it reaches perfection? Perfection does not exist.

We look at some of the trade agreements that Canada has engaged in in years past. It is an evolving issue. We look at the North American free trade agreement, or the free trade agreement prior to that and the evolution of it. We look at what is happening in Europe, for example, and the nations that are coming on board continuously, year after year.

I will not name any, but there are some nations within Europe, especially since the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, where there have been abuses, human rights violations, labour violations, and the list goes on. What has Europe done? The European Commission has set certain criteria and prerequisites. Within these agreements that we are engaging in, we all know very well that these conditions are also there.

Let me point them out, if I may. This article has to do with free trade with Colombia. These are not my words but the author's:

The pact is broadly modelled on others Canada has signed with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica in the past 15 years.

There was a benchmark set that we are following as a nation. Of course, we know the NDP's position. They have not signed on to or been prepared to support one free trade deal. If they had their way, we would be an esoteric country. We would not deal with anybody or talk to anybody. We would just ask to be left as we are. Unfortunately, that is not how jobs are created. That is not how we are going to prosper as a nation.

Let me point out something else. A senator from Colombia visited us. He is from the opposite side of the spectrum. Senator Robledo asked to meet us before our committee and we invited him. He was accompanied by the ambassador of Colombia. He had his say and expressed his concerns. We asked a lot of questions. We asked him what he would like us to do. We asked if we should just close our doors, period. He told us that we can move forward constructively to engage and hopefully look at improving some of the difficult issues that Colombia is facing today.

What has Colombia done? The office of the president appointed a gentlemen by the name of Frank Pearl. Mr. Pearl was appointed as high presidential counsellor for social and economic reintegration by President Uribe in September 2006. His responsibility, and they are investing money in this, is to help bring people from post-conflict reintegration programs back into society. His responsibility is to help these people rejoin their families, get retrained, find new skills, find gainful employment, find some dignity and come back into society.

I met with this gentleman a year ago and at that time he pointed out that 45,000 ex-combatants from both paramilitary groups and guerrilla forces have come back into society. For me, this is a sign that this country is serious about addressing the very difficult issues that it is facing. I am reaching out to everybody here. We as a nation have to make sure that human rights, labour rights, and others are not violated. areas.

I will close with this. I believe we have a duty as a nation to do two things. First, we must show them our way, which I believe is second to none. Second, we must create opportunities for ourselves as a nation so that our people have an opportunity to get their fair share of the pie out there.

[Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, September 30th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member's comments. He talked about standards and that there are not enough tough standards in this agreement. Of course, we know that if the NDP had its way, there would be no trade agreements, period.

I have an article from a newspaper that I want to quote. It says, “The pact”, referring specifically to this trade agreement, “is broadly modelled on others Canada has signed with the United States, Mexico, Israel, Chile and Costa Rica--”, and it goes on.

The member spoke about President Obama. I would like to quote again from the paper. It states, “Now U.S. President Barack Obama's trade czar Ron Kirk is seeking a way forward”.

I chaired a committee not too long ago, before the recess, at which President Uribe appeared. He reached out to us and said, “We need help”.

I want to ask the member, are we going to help this country by staying away and ignoring it or are we prepared to go there and show it how we do things here in Canada?

[Business of Supply, June 19th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member from the Bloc. He talked about having one regulator. He talked about so many other things. He failed to talk about the issues in today's motion.

He described the panel on EI as bogus and phony, which is sad, because EI is an issue we have to address. It is an issue that cannot be solved overnight. It has to be looked into. Proposals have to be put forth, et cetera.

Members of his party show concern for the unemployed. Why has the hon. member prejudged it already? He said it will not work. Why does he call it bogus and phony? I do not think my colleagues are bogus or phony. They are tangible. We can touch them. Why has he done so? Why has he put such a negative spin on it right away?

[Truth in Sentencing Act, June 8th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, not only was I impressed but I was very moved by the comments made by the member for Etobicoke North in her presentation on Bill C-25.

The Liberals are going to support this good piece of legislation.

My colleague took us into a different area and talked about preventing crime, the future and about how to address the crime that unfortunately is taking place in her riding.

She said that Etobicoke North needs investment. I am hopeful that the Conservative government now realizes that we are not just talking about infrastructure as bricks and mortar but that there is human life attached to it as well. I wonder if she would comment on that so the government perhaps could be persuaded to get the money out faster.

She referred to a young person who said that if only they were given a chance. That is a powerful, moving statement. Young people need a chance. I do not think legislation is going to do it. Other things are going to be required as well. I would like her to elaborate on this as well. She also quoted a young person who said that it is easier to get a gun than to get a job. What a powerful statement. That says it all.

Does she believe that the Conservative Party would be doing the right thing if it abolished the gun registry?

[Veterans Affairs, June 4th, 2009]

Madam Speaker, during question period on Tuesday, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, in my opinion, was not accurate in his response to a question that was posed to him by the member for York West about compensation for widows of veterans who were exposed to agent orange.

The minister stated that the Liberals refused to act. As the former chair of the veterans affairs committee who chaired a special session on agent orange, I say that the minister was not accurate in his response.

I will remind the minister that it was the Liberals who held a special session on agent orange. It was the Liberals who appointed Dr. Dennis Furlong to do the inquiry. It was the Liberals who allowed the minister, then a member of the opposition, to participate in that special committee hearing. Then there was an election.

As we commemorate D-Day and pay tribute to our military, I ask the minister, if he cares for our men and women in uniform, not to politicize this issue but to be accurate with his statements, unlike the Prime Minister who misled Ms. Joyce Carter, a veteran's widow.

[Request for Emergency Debate, June 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I want to request through this debate, if it is so accorded to us, to press, through the United Nations, to ensure that an individual is appointed, to get him or her in there with the authority to look at the situation, and bring back some findings, and also to press upon the UN to take the leadership role for which it was designed.

[Petitions, May 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present on behalf of the Tamil Canadian community in my riding. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to pressure the government of Sri Lanka not to deny the Tamil population food, shelter, medicine and other fundamental necessities, to allow the UN and other international relief agencies access to the areas affected by the conflict, to stop shelling and bombing civilian habitats, hospitals, schools and places of worship, to take active and concrete measures by providing leadership to convince the international community and agencies to allow an international UN observer panel to monitor human rights violations and bring the perpetrators to justice, as recommended by the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights and the Governor General of Canada.