John Cannis

[Greek Independence Day, March 25th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, on March 25 of each year, Hellenes world wide celebrate Greek Independence Day. On that day in 1821, a people rose up after 400 years of oppression by the Ottomans and said, “Freedom or death”.

The revolution of 1821, led by heroes such as Kolokotronis, Lord Byron of England and others, was an uprising not only to restore democracy to the nation that founded democracy, but also to free a nation, to cut the bonds of slavery and free its people, to free a spirit called Hellenism.

Today Greece is a modern 21st century country, a member of the European Community, NATO and the UN. It is a nation with a highly educated workforce, a nation prominently engaged in the arts, science and technology, business and commerce, a nation advocating peace and goodwill with its neighbours and the world.

Today, Greek Canadians are celebrating by saying, “Zeto E Ellas! Zeto O Canadas! Zeto E Ekosti Pemti Martiou!”

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight again.

The hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster referred to the sellout of the lumber deal. I chaired the committee when it did the review. He was a member of the committee. All the stakeholders came before the committee and asked for financial support, which the Liberal team was ready to give. What happened? The Liberals agreed with the NDP on the 2005 budget, but the NDP went to bed with the Conservatives and the deal went down the drain. A billion dollars was left in the United States. The lumber deal went down the drain thanks to the NDP.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question, but I want to clarify something that occurred earlier today.

Earlier the member for Burnaby—New Westminster asked the member for Sackville—Eastern Shore as question about what happened under the Liberals. He referred to the minister, John Manley. For the record, I was Mr. Manley's parliamentary secretary. I remember the NDP brought forward a motion in the House, which dealt with the a review on shipbuilding. Had it not been for the Liberal team, the motion would have died. Those members can make all the statements they want, but this is in the record and I challenge the member to look at it. Had the Liberals not voted in favour of the motion, the review would not have started.

Then the members referred to Mr. Tobin, who took over from Mr. Manley. I happened to be his parliamentary secretary as well. He was moving forward and was making strides until the NDP betrayed Canadians, overthrew the government, and off we went.

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member's colleague, the member for Burnaby—New Westminster, who sits on our committee and who has done a tremendous job in terms of putting the point forward on shipbuilding, was at the meeting last Thursday when the representatives said, first, that if the industry were properly structured, and second, if the structural financial facility were combined with the accelerated capital cost allowance that would really make things happen for the industry. It would be viable, strong and it could compete.

If those two things were in place, would the New Democratic Party support this?

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about giving away, and we do not give away. I want to remind him briefly that the member for Outremont was willing to sell Canadian water. That is just for the record. He is on the record saying that.

Last Thursday we had members of the shipbuilding industry before our committee again. They said that with certain adjustments and certain restructuring, we can be competitive. It is not something that is going to happen overnight. I am glad he mentioned that it would take over 15 years.

Does the member think that we can just walk away from any trade agreements? I will give an example. We procrastinated in signing the Central America Free Trade Agreement. The Americans did sign, and they are benefiting. Today we are out of that picture. Is he telling us that we should just not sign agreements with anybody and stay esoteric as a nation? Is that what he is really advocating?

[Canada-EFTA Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, March 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the hon. member, and I was quite intrigued. He referred to what was supposedly said and discussed in committee. The member was not in committee. I vice-chair the committee. I am surprised how he came up with this information.

He referred to Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and took us back well over 20 years. He spoke about how bad trade was with these free trade agreements. Does he think we should not have signed any agreements? We were doing hundreds of millions of dollars in trade 21 to 25 years ago. To the best of my knowledge, today we do on an average day $1.8 billion to $2 billion, which creates jobs.

The most important thing he talked about was shipbuilding. The stakeholders came before our committee, and he was not at committee, and gave us suggestions on how we could make this work. For example, he talked about SFF, the structured financial facility, and the ACCA, the accelerated capital cost allowance. If the government were to incorporate the two, it would become a viable situation for our shipbuilding industry.

[Sri Lanka, March 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, when Canadians in the Tamil community are worried sick about their relatives in Sri Lanka, the Conservative government continues to look for reasons not to act. The humanitarian crisis in Sri Lanka's northern Vanni region is rapidly becoming a catastrophe. International crisis groups are telling us that the situation is deteriorating by the day. Yet the Conservative government is not listening.

Will the Prime Minister now commit to supporting the call to appoint a UN envoy for Sri Lanka, one who will address human rights and assist in an ongoing and lasting peace process?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague from St. John's South—Mount Pearl and was pleased to hear her add the human side in this debate. I cannot thank her enough. I went through a similar experience.

I found it interesting that she talked about the new knowledge-based economy. We are hearing from the Conservative government that we have shovel-ready programs, which is great. To put it into bridges, streets, roads, et cetera, is wonderful, but I think what she was talking about was test tube-ready projects, if I may put it that way.

I want to give her the opportunity to comment, because she has set us on a path. It is not just what the United States is doing, although she referred to Barack Obama, but in essence it is that what we as a Liberal government did that now is going off track. The words she touched me with were “stable investments”. That is what I think this is all about. The government, it seems to me, has not really made an effort to provide the stability that is needed.

Could she comment on that aspect?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment.

I listened very carefully to both sides. At the time we took office in 1993, we were all concerned about having this brain drain. Once the Liberals took over in 1993 there was a tremendous effort to take care of the books, and the biggest investments, to put it on the record, were to invest in human resources.

As my hon. colleague mentioned earlier, it is good to have the mortar and the bricks, but the human resources are just as important.

What happened statistically? All of a sudden, because of the right investments, we were having a brain gain.

I am sad about what I am sensing from the comments, that the brain drain is once again beginning, costing us quality jobs, quality people, and a quality lifestyle for Canadians.

[Business of Supply, March 5th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous member from the Bloc who shared time with the member for Saint-Lambert. The member for Laval, as she went into her speech, agreed with everything that her colleague from the Bloc said.

Therefore I want to ask this question. I quote what the member for Saint-Lambert said: “The transfer of the sums of money to Quebec should be unconditional”.

The member for Laval agreed with the member for Saint-Lambert. What did she mean by “unconditional”? To my understanding, it is a program that is a national program for Canadians from one end of the country to the other. What does that mean, so that I can have a better idea?