John Cannis

[The Budget, February 3rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed what the member for Prince Edward—Hastings said in his closing remarks, which was that we work together, especially in these most difficult times that our country is facing, as well as internationally. I am on the same page on that one.

Having said that, I think it is also appropriate in these most difficult and trying times that we leave the facts as they are and kind of move away from the politics of things.

Before I ask the member a question, I would like to set the record straight. The previous speaker, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, talked about how in the nineties there was nothing done and money was taken away. He was absolutely wrong. I had the honour during those years to serve as the parliamentary secretary to the minister of industry. There were programs that the current government criticized then, such as the small business loan program, IRAP and the Canadian millennium scholarship fund. What about the 2,000 research chairs that were created in our country.

The member talked about providing money for skills and retraining. We know that all sectors are losing jobs. Do we not assess before we start training what the jobs are? Has that assessment been done?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 4th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, before I ask my question, I want to point out again to all Canadians what is happening here. By pointing out the flag, that gentleman is again misleading Canadians because that is not the truth.

If the member has any decency, if he is the honest member, which I believe he is, he would stand right now and say that there were flags behind those three gentlemen. Will he be honest and do that?

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to be respectful to all members because there has been chatter over the document from which I quoted the Prime Minister. I would be glad to table the document.

[Economic and Fiscal Statement, December 2nd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about a coup and said that we should be ashamed because this was unprecedented. He referred many times to an unholy alliance. Given what he said, I have a simple question for him.

On September 9, 2004, his leader, the present Prime Minister, along with the other two parties, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, said, “We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

That was a letter sent to the then governor general, Adrienne Clarkson. Why was that not considered a coup? That member should be ashamed of himself, not us.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the member when he talked about putting partisan positions aside. I could not agree more but that is not what it is all about. It is a matter of being accurate with the facts. He talked about budgeting $33 billion over the next several years. After the patient is dead, we cannot bring him back. Will the member work to ensure that the money comes right away?

Let me clarify for the member what the Conservative government has not done. In 2005, money was put aside for the municipal rural infrastructure program, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure fund and the public transit capital fund, totalling $11.5 billion for 2007-09. In the Conservative's 2007 budget, for the member's clarification, only $4 billion of those funds were included, eliminating $7.5 billion. The $20 billion that he talks about was money coming from the gas tax and the GST rebate to the cities.

Is the member prepared to stand and tell his constituents that he will go to his government and his Prime Minister to get that money back for the cities?

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I really was not prepared for that question, but I will say that this little trip was done in such a clandestine way. This trip was for Canada, not the Conservative Party. We do not distinguish between red, blue or whatever party. We as a Liberal team, when we used to go abroad for the good of Canada, invited other members. Now we have been shut out. I do not know what the Conservatives are afraid of. I do not know what they are scared of.

As a vice-chair of the defence committee some time ago, we were invited to one meeting in that previous mandate. The Conservatives would notify us at the last minute when of course we could not make it. As a result of the minister's visit, I think he has an obligation to come back and provide a full report, given the circumstances. However, everything is done behind closed doors, as I said, in such a clandestine way that Canadians do not know.

I think for the good of the country, the Conservatives must open up the process. They must invite other party members to participate, as tradition calls for, not just single-handedly going there and us not knowing who they talked to, if they talked to anybody.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting it because we made an amendment, because Canadians today cannot afford another half a billion dollars for another election, because as I said in my statement, the throne speech is a general overview of the government's intentions. It has not given us a budget. It has not given us anything specific. It would be unfair to Canadians. It would be unwise. It would be a bad example to those who are watching us. They have asked us to co-operate. I think this Liberal team is showing the willingness to co-operate, giving the opportunity to the government to bring forth specifics.

Now, on the infrastructure, if I may, the member asks why? We proved it. We have a record that speaks for itself, not a record that we made up. These are facts, not innuendoes.

Also permit to me point out, on infrastructure, in the 2005 budget, the Liberal government renewed the municipal rural infrastructure program, the Canada strategic infrastructure fund, the border infrastructure program, and the public transit capital trust. That was $11.5 billion between 2007 and 2014, which the Conservative government unfortunately cancelled. How did we do it? We did it in a balanced way, the Liberal way.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, November 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin this debate, as all other members have, by thanking certain people. It is the first opportunity we have had to speak in the House since the election. I thank the residents and good people of Scarborough Centre for once again deciding in their wisdom that I am worthy to represent them in this, the 40th Parliament. I was first elected in the 35th Parliament. That is a long time ago, six elections ago. This is my sixth term. It is with humility that I thank the voters of Scarborough Centre.

I thank my volunteers as well, who were present day in and day out to help me achieve another victory. I want to thank my riding association. They were the administrative side, and they were there to help in any way possible. Last but not least, I thank my entire family, beginning with my wife Mary, who spearheaded the campaign once again. I thank my children: our daughter Irene and her husband Tony; our two grandchildren, little George and little Maria; our son Paul and his new bride Christina; and our young son Daniel. To everyone else I give my thanks, and I commit to them once again that I will be here to be their voice in my literature and to represent their views.

Before the election started and as this debate unfolds, I was asking myself what we need to do. I consulted my constituents and many people around me, knowing that this debate would unfold as soon as Parliament opened. As I have asked in the past, what is a throne speech? The other day I responded to another member by saying that a throne speech is a general overview of what the government intends to do. It contains nothing specific. That is why it is good to have a vote, but in essence we should make it a confidence vote because there is nothing specific in it.

What did I do during the campaign? I responded to what the people wanted. The people said that these are very difficult and trying times. They asked me to point out certain facts in order for them to judge. My opponents from the Conservative Party were putting out literature with pictures and inflammatory comments that I will not go into. There were statements that in essence were inaccurate. However, I say that this is a democracy. Let the people judge.

As a member for 15 years, I have accumulated a database of facts. I went back and took out the books. It was not what the member for Scarborough Centre had to say. It was not what other people had to say. It was what the media printed. It was what was on the record, records that you, Mr. Speaker, have read in the past as a member, as has everybody else. I went down the list and saw that we did inherit a $43 billion deficit, and we did bring down the debt by almost $60 billion, and we did reduce the debt to GDP ratio from 68.5% to 38%, which is what the Conservative Party is saying today. I am glad they are pointing it out.

As a Liberal government, we brought eight consecutive balanced budgets. Before the election, the Prime Minister was saying that we needed to have an election because Parliament was not functioning. Canadians were asking why it was not functioning. When they asked me, I would say that I knew we were having problems in committees because there were disruptions. Chairs of committees were walking out and we could not get our work done, if that was what the Prime Minister was referring to.

The government brought in legislation on, for example, crime and justice issues. My opponent was saying we blocked and blocked repeatedly. However, I pulled out my record and noticed that it was odd. I voted in favour of crime bill after crime bill. Why did they not go through? It was because Parliament was prorogued by the Prime Minister.

I stand up here and say, yes, we wanted to do things, but we were strapped in 1993-94. I read a beautiful statement the other day written by the former governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge, somebody we all know. He is a very well-recognized, internationally astute economist. We have been pushing in Ontario, along with the premier and the mayors, to put money into infrastructure, which was one of our programs in 1993 after we took over. It created so many jobs and stimulated the economy. David Dodge said in London, Ontario, that it is a good time to build those bridges, build those roads which by policy we neglected in the 1990s because we were broke.

I want to repeat his words, “because we were broke”. This country was unofficially bankrupt, so we had to put our house in order, get the economy rolling, and then once that was rolling, indeed, we made those investments that we committed to the people, for example, the Canada infrastructure program.

I know in my area of Scarborough Centre the decisions were made from the bottom up. They went to the then city of Scarborough and asked what were its needs. It identified those needs and we supported them in a one-third, one-third, one-third partnership.

I went down the list and I started outlining what was important and my constituents said health care. The House will recall that just before the election there was a survey that was done which asked, if an election were held today what are the three most important issues for Canadians. Number one at 79%, as very important, was health care; number two at 75%, as very important, was the economy; and, number three at 61%, as very important, was the environment. I agreed with them.

People who have known me around this honourable chamber for 15 years know I have been saying that health care is and will be the most important issue for us here in Canada.

When I listened to the auto executives in the United States the other day, I remembered, as the parliamentary secretary to industry, that we had the auto people come before our committee. Do members know what they said to us about why they were competitive here in Canada and why we had a healthy industry? It was because of health care.

We know also, and it is on the record, some of the statements from the Conservative members. If they had their way, along with Mike Harris and his group, they would privatize health care. That is not something I am saying. Those are words that were uttered from their mouths, specifically in interviews that are on the record.

I went down the list and I outlined these points to my constituents, and pointed out that the largest investment in health care, $58 billion, was made by the Liberal government as a result of the Romanow report. Mr. Romanow said in an interview with Peter Mansbridge, that the Liberals not only met his expectations, they exceeded them. We met that commitment for Canadians. On infrastructure, as I mentioned earlier, unprecedented investments were made.

They asked me also to point out why the current Prime Minister reneged on certain commitments. I asked, what commitments? So they asked me to dig them out. One of the things they were very adamant about and they are still asking questions is a need for clarification on the in and out advertising scam from the last election. I said that I agreed with them, but the committee has been put on hold. If we believe in democracy, we will allow that to unfold and get to the bottom of it.

Canadians want to know what happened with the former member of Parliament, now deceased, Chuck Cadman. Canadians want to know why the largest tax increase on income trust at 31% was there and why seniors lost their future moneys. Canadians want to know why today the government is not putting forth the money that was allocated for infrastructure.

In 10 minutes it is really impossible to say what we want to say, but I look forward to any questions that the members might have.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate the member for Prince Edward—Hastings on his re-election. I do agree with him when he said that it is the economy that is the issue that we are all faced with here in Canada and abroad. I was hoping to hear about measures, and in much more detail, the government is taking to move forward. He and the member for Leeds—Grenville talked about tourism. I want to pick up on that.

I remember when I was parliamentary secretary to John Manley. We brought in the Canadian Tourism Development Corporation. We created it through legislation. I helped pass that bill. What we did is we invested in stakeholders. Our tourism industry was really growing at that time. One of the key elements was the GST rebate for tourists.

The Conservative government came in and eliminated that. Is he prepared, as another stimuli to the economy, to provide some input to the government and the Prime Minister to bring back that program in order to motivate and kickstart the tourism industry? Will he do that?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, November 26th, 2008]

Madam Speaker, I wish a happy birthday to the member and congratulations on her election.

I was a little confused when the member talked about co-operation and making the House work. I was pleased to hear that at the end because at the beginning I was confused. We know the NDP is not prepared to support this throne speech. As the Liberal team said, there is an amendment because the Speech from the Throne is a general overview but nothing concrete about what the government’s intentions are. It seems that if the NDP had its way, we would be in perpetual election mode continuously, which is nonsense. By all means, I am not here supporting the Conservatives, but I am supporting the Canadian taxpayers who pick up the tab.

I have a question for the member. She is the associate critic for aboriginal affairs and I congratulate her for that. She talked about first nations, schooling, training and funding. The Liberal government of Paul Martin had signed the Kelowna accord, which allocated funds and programs to address the concerns of which she is speaking. Her party agreed with the Conservative government that prematurely overthrew that government, and all that money was lost. All those opportunities were lost. What is she going to say to her constituents?