John Cannis

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 10th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the member, my good friend from Don Valley East, said the Conservative Party in its DNA does not have social housing. The more I read this budget, it is not in its DNA to support seniors, youth, heath care or education.

I want to ask a specific question on EI, if I may. In my neck of the woods in the great city of Toronto, Scarborough, where I come from, I am proud of Ontarians. They work to earn a living. They do not work for unemployment, but in these difficult and unusual times, unfortunately some of them are getting laid off, companies are closing, et cetera.

I want to know, because they are asking me, why are we in Ontario being treated differently in terms of EI than other provinces?

The Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities was under the Harris government, which slashed, burned and destroyed Ontario, and now he has come to the federal side. What it took us 12 years to do, the Conservatives have undone in two and a half years. They have literally brought Canada--I was not going in that direction, Mr. Speaker, but I am prepared to go toe to toe with my good friend. It is just that this is not the time nor the place.

Nevertheless, I want to know. Because their understanding is that the same dollar they pay in Toronto is the same Canadian dollar they pay in B.C., Charlottetown or wherever. Why are we treated differently?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The Prime Minister rode the wave on credibility and fairness. The amendment that the Liberal team has put forward is to hold the government to account three times a year. We want to see if indeed that money is being well spent, and he is right. The Conservatives have left unspent $88 million for disaster relief and crime prevention. That is a shame when all this money was allocated. The problem is applications, stumbling blocks, nitty-gritty, timeframes, et cetera. When an area has a need, when we need to hire more police officers, there should be no obstacle.

I believe that the Conservatives should implement certain proposals in terms of taking certain bugs out of the system so that there are no foul-ups like other programs in the past or that indeed the money goes where it is supposed to go and is spent where it is supposed to be when they allocate these moneys. The frustration that people feel, and I used the program for the Canadian Film Festival earlier on that my colleague brought up as an example, is what is we are talking about.

If we have allocated the money for, let us say, a recreation facility, or if we have allocated the money to hire more police officers, for example, or if we have allocated the money for a disaster area, get that money there. People cannot wait. We do not want another Katrina issue, where money was announced by Mr. Bush and a year and a half, two years later, people were still hurting.

We want action now. The nation needs action now. The world needs action now.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I know there was not a question, but there was something I picked up that is very important. The member said that when the finance minister came back and presented his budget, he said it was to nail Liberals.

Let me clarify for the record, the Conservatives were nailing democracy, not the Liberals. They were nailing the NDP as well. They were taking away, through some of those proposals, the ability for democracy to unfold. The NDP is upset because the Conservatives said it did not offer proposals.

Let me close with this. I know the NDP is going to say that we are upset still. We are not upset. We have overcome it, on behalf of Canadians.

When the NDP did make proposals for our budget of 2005 for housing, post-secondary education, infrastructure, seniors, the environment, et cetera, and we accepted them, the NDP reneged on it. It betrayed Canadians. So we find ourselves today where we are and the NDP should not complain.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to add my voice to this debate on the budget implementation bill, Bill C-10.

As I open my remarks, I want to go back to when the debate started this morning. My good friend, the parliamentary secretary, in his very eloquent speech, said that the government wanted to move this thing forward fast and it would not put up speakers. I would like Canadians to know that what he was really saying was he did not want anyone to put up speakers so the bill could be expedited and moved along.

We get paid by Canadians to be here and to debate these issues, and that is important. My heritage is Greek. Some years ago an ancient Greek by the name of Solon founded democracy. He believed in debate. It is through debate that we can move democracy forward.

If we do not have the opportunity to debate the budget implementation bill, how will we analyze what the flaws are? We cannot just take it for granted. I am going to get into some specifics.

In the morning, when I began feeling really frustrated, I went out for a walk, I cooled off and thought my good friend for Parkdale—High Park would start off and I would move forward.

Why did we choose to support the budget bill? For Canada and Canadians. Our constituents told us that we could not afford to spend an extra half a billion dollars plus for an election, when the result might probably be the same. It is the last thing they needed right now. We agreed with them. We agreed we had more important things to address as opposed to going back to the people.

We wanted to put up speakers to explain to Canadians what was happening. There are areas in the budget with which I am very pleased, and I will outline them, but there are areas about which I have concerns.

There is significant investment outlined for social housing, infrastructure and for first nations, which makes me very happy. There is targeted support for low and middle-income Canadians through the expansion of the child tax credit and the working income tax benefit. I am very pleased about that as well. There is investment in regional development agencies throughout the country.

We have grave concerns. That is why our amendment has put the government on probation. I believe the government will be reporting three times, and we will see if it delivered.

Today a friend of mine told me to read page 24 of today's The Hill Times, which states “Infrastructure money hasn’t flowed, says Federation of Canadian Municipalities”. It is not the Liberals who are complaining, it is the cities. Earlier today they referred to 1967, centennial year, where we had infrastructure unfolding right across the country, hockey arenas, community centres, and it was all wonderful. You remember very well, Mr. Speaker, and we were young at that time, it was a different country.

It was not the country we live in today. We did not have the billions of dollars in debts and deficits that are outlined here and the cities were functioning differently at that time. My parents were maybe paying $500 a year in property taxes. Seniors today are having to pay $4,000 and $5,000 in property taxes. They cannot afford any more tax increases. The cities do not have the ability to put up their one-third. The provinces are finding it difficult, as well. That is not how the program worked in 1967.

We hear what is going on in the United States. I have not heard President Barack Obama talk about one-third, one-third, one-third. If ever there were a time for a government to step in, if ever a nation needed help, it is now.

The area I come from, the former city of Scarborough, has a need. There are potholes like crazy in our streets, and there are unbelievable numbers of complaints. It is the greatest city of Toronto. What is happening? We are downloading to who? Through property tax increases, maybe so the cities can come up with the one-third, one-third, one-third.

I am concerned primarily because in the past the government, with all due respect, has made a lot of announcements. This is not Liberal bias. According to the papers and the statistics, the government is not delivering the programs. Let me give one an example.

When we were in government in 2006, we announced funding of $25 million for the necessary infrastructure for the Canada film festival. I was there with the former senior minister, the member for Eglinton—Lawrence, Susan Kadis, a former member, Tony Ianno, the former member for Trinity--Spadina, and several others. We cut the cake, pictures were taken and we announced the funding. The funding was confirmed in that Liberal budget.

In the last election the Conservatives announced this funding. They saw me in that picture. This funding was announced almost three years ago. This is the concern I and my constituents have. There is a lot of talk, but one has to deliver. This is the kind of accountability we are talking about on behalf of Canadian taxpayers.

Under the picture, which shows the Minister of Transport, Infrastructure and Communities and his assistant Chris Day, it says, “'best estimate' the department currently has is that $3.6-billion of the funds have been”, and this is the key word, “allocated”.

The Conservatives told us that this money had already been given. The key word is “allocated”. This is a quote from the executive assistant, Mr. Day. What does that mean? Allocated means it could come on the 35th of the month or maybe the 37th of the month five years from now.

The parliamentary secretary has asked why the Conservatives do not have input from the Liberals. We took a difficult situation in 1993 upon ourselves as a Liberal team and made those tough decisions, as a party, and we allowed Canadians to judge us accordingly.

The Prime Minister has said that he is an economist. He said during the election that he ran his own business, but he did not know what business he ran. He compared himself to our member for Markham—Unionville, who is an economist. He has hands on experience. He worked for a bank. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me where he applied his economist experience. This is the time he should be proving his experience.

We did not go out knocking on anybody's door. We made those decisions on our own. We consulted right across the country. Before our budget, all my colleagues held extensive consultations. I held them in Scarborough with my other colleagues from Scarborough. We brought information. We were receptive to input from the opposition, but these are different times. These are times that call for bold and tough decisions. These are times that call for pulling up our socks and being honest with Canadians.

I will tell the House of concerns that people have brought to my attention.

For example, the United States today is talking about green jobs, a green economy. Every day when the Minister of Human Resources answers questions in the House, she says that the government has invested money in training for future jobs. Have those future jobs been identified? Before investing in training, the jobs need to be identified. I have a human resources background. Before I go into the water, I want to know that I can swim.

The minister talks about retraining people. For what jobs are we retraining? We have heard the government talk about high-tech jobs, but we have also heard about high-tech companies laying people off right, left and centre. Bombardier was mentioned the other day.

The government has talked about investing in the Canadian Space Agency. That is wonderful. How many people will be retrained to become robotic engineers?

If the Conservatives have identified these new jobs, then I ask them to please let us know so I can inform my constituents who are getting laid off as well.

It boils down to credibility.

A friend of mine knew I was going to speak today so he brought me an article that was printed in the Toronto Star, on Sunday, October 5. I know I cannot use names because I do not want to be reprimanded. The article headline reads “[the Prime Minister's] tactics mislead voters”.

Canadians are worried about that. As much as we want to give the government the green light on its budget, to a degree there is a gut feeling that we are being misled somewhere. That is why it is important for speakers to get up in the House. That is why this debate is important, so we have the opportunity to express our views on behalf of our constituents.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2009, February 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the chief government whip. He told us about what is in this budget. He talked about the need for co-operation. He knows very well that the Liberal team is putting people and country first, but with caveats, and that is what I would like to ask him about. He told us what is in this budget. Could he tell us about a timeframe?

I ask the question because in the building Canada fund some years ago, the Conservatives put in $33 billion, of which not even 10% has been delivered. What good is it if all these programs are put forward? We are co-operating on this side to make sure that the bill is passed. What are the Conservatives going to do to make sure that the programs are indeed funded?

[Situation in Sri Lanka, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and neighbour, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I think it is very important and, as I said, it did not come to me just in listening to the debate. We are dealing with a multi-faceted problem. Yes, it is ceasefire. Yes, it is human rights. Yes, it is getting medical supplies to people, as well as food and clean water. It is everything.

Along with that, for a moment we have a unique opportunity for the government and the country. I do not know how much staff would be required, but let us assume it is 10. Let us send 10 people over right now from our department, people who can look at these files, advance them as quickly as possible and get these family members here if there is already an application. I am referring to applications that are already in the pipeline. That would be a very positive signal to the communities here in our country.

I have had the opportunity and the honour, over the past 15 years that I have been elected, to meet a good number of members in the community. I have seen the young ones grow from 10-year-old cubs to university students today. One example is my friend Logan Kanapathi, who is a city councillor today in Markham. He came here as a refugee. Today he is a very successful businessman and a city councillor. His wife is a doctor, offering services to all Canadians.

This community has added to the wonderful mosaic that we call Canada. Maybe we could do that by bringing their loved ones over here as quickly as we can.

[Situation in Sri Lanka, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the members for Etobicoke North, Don Valley West and Etobicoke Centre.

I have the opportunity to participate in this emergency debate on the unfortunate circumstances in Sri Lanka.

Earlier today I welcomed here in Ottawa a group of students from Precious Blood school in my riding. They arrived while the people were out there demonstrating, and I use that word in a positive way, to express their concern and their message.

The students asked me what was going on outside. I explained to them that a group from across Canada was here to demonstrate with respect to what is happening in their former homeland of Sri Lanka, and I explained a bit of the circumstances.

They were surprisingly attentive. They wanted to know and hear. In the mosaic, the representation of students before me, I think there had to be some students from that community as well. I think they were pleased that I was leaving the reception to go and add my voice to the voices of the many colleagues who were out there earlier today.

Throughout this debate, we have heard a historical perspective of what has happened in decades past, the thousands of innocent lives that have been lost, from parliamentarians to young boys and girls, young men and women, seniors and so on. We have heard about a society that is not able to progress.

The humanitarian tragedy that is unfolding today is unfortunate. I think we could go so far as to use the word that is not permitted to be used: genocide, or ethnic cleansing.

We are all aware that organizations and groups such as the European community, the U.K., Norway, Switzerland, the United States and Canada have expressed their concern for what is happening. It is odd that although all these prominent, powerful nations have made these statements, they are going nowhere.

It prompted me to go back to a quote of what was said. Earlier they talked about UN declarations. I am going to quote, for the record, what Javier Solana said here in this honourable House, when we had a joint session with the House of Commons and the Senate. He was then the NATO Secretary-General. He said, “The solution to the problem is not in signing papers; it is in compliance”.

The frustration is that bodies such as the UN, whose credibility I believe is on the line today, can sit around those wonderful chambers and bring forth resolutions. Then, regarding these conflicts, wherever they are unfolding--today it is Sri Lanka--people say that there was a resolution, but why is it not being complied with and not being carried out? As a result, the conflict escalates.

We need a way to enforce these resolutions and have these nations comply with the resolutions through measures mentioned earlier by several colleagues, as was done by the Mulroney government and as was mentioned earlier by the member for Scarborough—Agincourt.

I have had the Canadian Tamil Congress visit me in my office. We talked about how we could approach this issue. We talked about petitions. Petitions have been presented and are waiting for accreditation so that we can present them to express their views.

However, an interesting thing came up earlier, and I ask the member for Oak Ridges—Markham to take this to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism or even their whole caucus. At a time of great difficulty like this, when loved ones are being killed, when they are being thrown out of their homes, villages and towns and have nowhere to go, maybe there could be an application for them to come and move over with their loved ones.

I remember that during the Yugoslavian conflict, we here in Canada opened our doors and allowed many thousands of people to come over temporarily to get out of that conflict. They stayed with their relatives. Some of them stayed in Canada and some of them went back.

We talk about resolutions, but what a unique opportunity it would be if the government side today could ask our immigration officers over there to look at all the applications so that we could reunite them, or unite them, with their families here in Canada. It is one suggestion for a unique opportunity to alleviate some of the pain.

[Situation in Sri Lanka, February 4th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up on what my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Agincourt, talked about earlier but I will not get into the data, the stats, etcetera.

Given these unusual circumstances, these difficult circumstances and the great delays in terms of trying to connect loved ones, family members, children, wives, etcetera, would the member consider going to the Minister of Immigration and asking whether we can look at some of the legitimate application files that are in the process and expedite them and, if need be, send in some additional staff for the time being so we can connect these loved ones?

Some time ago, during the Yugoslavian conflict, Canada allowed immigrants to come over and stay with their loved ones, or even on their own, until the dust kind of settled. Most of them went back but some of them stayed here with their loved ones.

This is one way we could help alleviate the problem. Will the member consider doing that?

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, because the NDP member was not here at that time, I would like to clarify this for the record. He used three different figures, $45 billion, $51 billion, $55 billion in terms of the surplus at EI. I just want to inform the member that back then, when the Liberal government took over, close to 12% of Canadians were unemployed and a lot of money was being paid out to unemployed Canadians. However, over the course of several years, three million jobs were created, thanks to good Liberal policy, which means that more revenue was coming in.

It is a fact that after the government addressed the payout need for the unemployed and the future, it took some of that money and put it into debt retirement and deficit elimination, which saved money for the country. It was managed well by the Liberals.

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member for Acadie—Bathurst. It seemed like he was more upset with the Liberals. I would just remind him that we are not in government.

He talked about giving hope to the workers of the country. He talked about the economic crisis, people losing their jobs. Does he think it is wise to bring down a government and spend over half a billion dollars to have another election when we just had a few months ago? Is that what he wants to say to those workers who are trying to find stability and security?

Canadians told us that they did not want another election. Does he want to spend over half a billion dollars to have another exercise?