John Cannis

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nepean—Carleton is now leaving his chair, indicating that he was going to come outside and pose the same wording that he had in this chamber. I either get an apology for personally addressing those comments to me, or he immediately steps out of the chamber and states that publicly. I meant it the first time.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I challenge the member for Nepean—Carleton to step outside this chamber right now and make the same statement. Step outside and--

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While the member for Crowfoot was responding to questions, when he was referring to corruption, mismanagement, misuse and so on, and I will not repeat all the words, the member for Nepean--Carleton pointed to me directly referring to “you, you”.

We all come, as I said earlier, to this hon. House. When he gets one to one and personal, I say that the member should stand up and apologize simply because it is that type of poisonous environment that is hurting the Canadian nation as a whole.

I demand an apology because he addressed it directly to me.

[Federal Accountability Act, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the member for Crowfoot. I know he believes, and all members should believe, that we all allow our names to stand to serve our country with good and honourable intentions. However, they also came here as a party in 1993 with this law and order initiative, and I personally agreed with that. What is law and order? When we see corruption, misuse and abuse, it is incumbent upon us, as legislators, to initiate the proper machinery to rectify, to apprehend the culprits and to bring them to justice.

However, if he believes in a just and lawful society with due process and the rule of law, then he will agree with me that the commission under Judge Gomery was brought forward by the Liberal government because we wanted to get to the bottom of who abused the system. Does he not agree that it was the right thing to do, no matter what came out of it and who the culprits were?

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, let me tell members opposite how I know. The member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, the member for Prince Edward—Hastings, the member for Halton and so many other members of their own caucus have said to the Prime Minister that he is doing wrong, that this is not right, and they have expressed this publicly.

I ask the Prime Minister if he is a true leader. A true leader should know how to admit his mistakes. Let him be a true leader and stand up and say “I made the mistake” and reverse his unacceptable decision.

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

And the Prime Minister has not been listening to Canadians. Will he listen to his own members of Parliament, reverse his short-sighted policy and allow the country to grieve as one when our sons and daughters come home?

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

You get them too.

The soldiers, upon their return--

[National Defence, April 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's own backbench has been swamped with faxes, letters, e-mails and phone calls from constituents across the country objecting to his refusal to allow--

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, talking about rhetoric, the member for South Shore—St. Margaret's talked about our military. I chaired the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, of which the hon. member was not a member. He never sat on that committee so he really cannot speak from experience.

The hon. member is being intellectually dishonest when he said that we did not have the equipment and we had no money. He should reflect on the last two budgets alone. I will not go to the last three or four budgets.

Senior military staff came before our committee, one after the other, praising the Liberal government for the investments. They were so happy with what we had done, they applauded us.

Let me clarify this for the hon. member because he talks about procurement and equipment. Today, we are talking about buying heavy lift airplanes. They do not even exist. They are not even on the assembly line. The earliest we could possibly receive them, if we placed an order today, is maybe seven or eight years down the road. We do not just snap our fingers and say that we want airplanes, or that we want jeeps, et cetera. That just simply does not happen.

Maybe in his world or in the world of the a minority government they think they can take an order paper to Grand and Toy and say that they want to order airplanes. That is just not the case.

The hon. member has not got a clue what the military has been saying.

[RESUMPTION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY, April 10th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, having worked with you in committee and in the House for years, let me take this opportunity to congratulate you. I can think of no other person more deserving to hold this position than yourself.

The hon. member said opposition members have not complimented the throne speech and that is wrong. Just the other day I was on my feet and on four occasions complimented the government and actually thanked it for outlining the fact that we are the number one country in the world and have achieved tremendous success. Canadians are proud of our accomplishments. I am glad the government put this in the throne speech because it is acknowledging the accomplishments of past years. I greatly respect the hon. member and have worked with him before. My question ties in to the responsibilities of the Minister of Justice as well.

During the campaign all the candidates were making different promises. My opponent in Scarborough Centre, Roxanne James, said publicly in her brochure, which I have right here, that “We will repeal the gun registry”. That statement was made on behalf of that party. The Minister of Public Safety said the other day that it will be harder than the Tories expected to dismantle the registry because it will require a legislative vote in Parliament. Of course it is going to require a vote in Parliament.

Were the candidates such as Roxanne James lying or is that party going to keep the gun registry? The government should put it to a vote. I see the member for Yorkton--Melville, who has been an advocate of getting rid of the gun legislation, sitting in the House. Is the government going to keep that promise? Why does the government not put this to a vote? Is the government going to keep its word and put it to a vote? Of course it is going to take a vote. Will the repeal of the gun legislation be put to a vote as promised, yes or no?