John Cannis

[Rwanda, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, 12 years ago the world watched with horror as the Rwandan genocide unfolded and over 800,000 Rwandans were murdered.

We must be prepared as a nation to prevent such things from ever happening again.

Canada takes pride that the responsibility to protect has now been given express international global recognition and endorsement. This was the centrepiece of the Liberal government's international commitment to peace and security.

May we never, ever let evil triumph again.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, not only was I surprised, I was shocked. I was shocked because we had talked about how the Liberals would take our country into the 21st century by creating a smart society, about how we were going to be competitive. Even though I say it is a shame that education was not even one of the Conservative priorities, I will say in complimentary comments that they acknowledged it in their pamphlet when they spoke of our success “at the leading edge of science, business, the arts and sport”.

In response to the question, what the Conservatives have done here, to some degree, is acknowledge the investments made by the Liberal government. It is no coincidence that we are where we are today; it is because the Liberal government made the proper investments.

I am hopeful that the government also has a change of mind and starts investing in these areas as well, like we did, so that we can continue making our country leading edge, as they say, leading the world as a smart country that is competitively strong and, most important, united.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the member is a new member and first I will congratulate him on his election, but when he talks about Conservative approaches, I will say that there was a Conservative experiment under Brian Mulroney and we all know what he left the country with: debts, deficits and high unemployment. Our country was psychologically down and out.

I said earlier, and I will repeat it again, that those members were not the Conservatives then. They came in as the Reform Party and then were the Alliance and today they are the so-called Conservatives.

I want to remind the member that we took a responsible position. On the contingency plan, for example, when he asks why, the Liberals took that contingency plan, that money left over, and put it directly to debt reduction. We made that commitment and we kept that commitment throughout the 13 years we were in government.

The numbers I quoted to the member are facts. I challenge the member to look at them. I say to the member, we just do not wake up, sir, and say that there was a $600 billion debt and now we have a $500 billion debt, or that we had a $42 billion deficit and suddenly we have no deficit. There is no magic wand. It comes from being constructive, intelligent, fair and liberally balanced.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Absolutely? There we go. Those members agree.

Let me remind Canadians of the fact that the Reform Party said it had come here to do government differently. That party wanted no limousines. Members may remember the bowling alley those members wanted. They wanted no pensions, of course, but they reneged on that. That is how they ended up doing government differently.

Let me say for the Prime Minister that he had gained some political capital, but unfortunately he lost it all overnight. I will tell the House why.

I will reflect on the most recent Parliament. Before we recessed, Bill C-31 and Bill C-32, which would have created the Department of International Trade, were before the House. The present Prime Minister and his party, along with the NDP and the Bloc, voted against my party.

Why am I bringing this up? Because the Conservative Party recruited the member for Vancouver--Kingsway and gave him the portfolio of Minister of International Trade, yet that department does not even exist. The Conservative Party did not want that department to exist and yet the Prime Minister appointed a Minister of International Trade.

No wonder the people of Vancouver--Kingsway are upset. The member for Vancouver--Kingsway said he could best serve his constituents in this capacity. What is he saying? Is he saying that I, as a member of Parliament, and all the other members of Parliament cannot serve our constituents in our capacity as MPs? Is he saying that he has to be a minister to serve his constituents? I say no. He has done a wrong to his constituents and I encourage him to reflect and make the right decisions.

I will close by saying that there were a lot of innuendoes during the campaign. Candidates put out brochures promising pie in the sky, promising to repeal the gun legislation, for example. I say they had better keep their word. That is what they said.

The government talked about recognition of foreign credentials. Those members know very well that it is a provincial responsibility.

There was talk of buying more DART systems, when they ridiculed that in the defence committee when I was the chair.

I wish I had another half an hour, because I have a whole list of things here. I will just remind the government that Canadians are looking for constructive change. The Conservative Party, when two out of three Canadians did not vote for it, had better think twice.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 7th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Speech from the Throne. Before I commence, I would like to state that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg South Centre.

Before I get into my remarks, I want to take this opportunity, like all members have after this most recent election, to thank some people. First and foremost, I would like to thank my family, starting with my wife and my children, my sons, Paul and Daniel, my daughter, Irene, my son-in-law, Tony and our little grandson, George, who came together as a team. I would also like to thank my riding association executive and all the many volunteers and supporters of this most recent campaign. As well, I give a big thanks to the residents of Scarborough Centre who, in their wisdom, once again chose to give me the opportunity to have the honour and the privilege to represent them here in the 39th Parliament for the fifth consecutive time.

I read the throne speech over very carefully and I listened to remarks from other members throughout the past couple of days. I chose to take excerpts of some of the comments and I will comment on those.

The Speech from the Throne has been described as a pamphlet. I heard somebody this morning call it blue light. In one of the paragraphs it states:

Through hard work, foresight and good fortune, we have come together to make our vast country one of the most successful the world has ever seen.

That is so true. By making that statement, the Conservatives admit that this is one of the most successful countries. We did not simply get there by saying “Here we are. We are the most successful country”. The right type of investments had to be made. The right type of decisions, and tough decisions, had to be made.

In order for the Conservatives to make that statement today, we must go back to 1993 and before 1993 when the Conservative government was in office, prior to the Liberal government assuming office in 1993. The Conservatives say in their statement that we are the most successful country today. You, Mr. Speaker, were here at that time as were other members. They know very well that this beautiful country of ours was described as a banana republic. It was literally bankrupt. The statement could not have been made at that time.

However, the Conservatives are in a position today to make that statement, and I am very pleased it is being made. It is reflective of some of the decisions, some of the initiatives that were brought forward over the past four mandates.

It is proper to acknowledge the hard work of many of the members, led by the two previous prime ministers and so many cabinet ministers who, along with caucus, were able to consult with Canadians and bring forth forward thinking ideas.

Along the way, were there some mistakes? Very much so. As one of the members of the Conservative Party clearly stated so eloquently yesterday, we do not live in a perfect world, and I agree with him. It further states in the pamphlet:

The distance we have travelled is remarkable. A country once perceived to be at the edge of the world is now at the leading edge of science, business, the arts and sports.

Again, I agree with that, but we could not have got on the podium in Turin if proper investments by the previous government had not been made. We would not have been on the leading edge in science, business and art if the right type of investments had not been made.

We must remind Canadians that the present government just took over. The many successes that are outlined were investments that were made in previous years. I thank the government again for acknowledging the success of the previous government.

The Speech from the Throne goes on to say, “The Government is proud of what Canadians have accomplished so far”. I thank the Prime Minister and his newly elected minority government for acknowledging the many accomplishments and for being proud of those accomplishments. Let me remind them of some of the accomplishments, which I took the opportunity to explain to Canadians during the election.

When we inherited the government from the Conservatives, we had a national debt of just over $600 billion. Today, not only have the Conservatives inherited a country awash with surpluses, but the debt is down by almost $60 billion to $499 billion. We inherited a deficit of over $42.3 billion and we eliminated it many years ago in 1997, if I recall.

In this country, we had never heard of surpluses like those we have had in the past several years, surpluses averaging $8 billion or $9 billion year after year, which we invested in the sciences, business, arts, sports et cetera, as the Conservatives have acknowledged that we did successfully. That is where the investments went.

I remind the party opposite, the minority government, that back then we had an unemployment rate of almost 11.5%. Most recently, before the election, it was at 6.4%.

We supported small business enterprise because, as was stated earlier, we also believed then that it is one of the main engines that drives the economy. That is why well over three million jobs were created.

Our debt to GDP ratio, which is so significant, had dropped dramatically to almost 38% from a high of 68.4%. What does that mean? It means that in terms of interest we were saving an average of $3 billion a year. The Liberal government took that money and invested it back into the country. We invested it back into the programs that Canadians asked us to invest in.

I stand here proudly to say that every budget we brought forward was a budget that was a result of consultations with Canadians. We used a balanced approach. We also knew we could not satisfy everybody. At the end of the day, the country became what the party across describes in the brochure as the best country and the number one country in the world.

I will go on referring to their pamphlet, which states, “This Government has been given a mandate to lead the change demanded by the Canadian people”. Does the government's mandate reflect the fact that two out of three Canadians did not vote for that party? I emphasize the fact that two out of three Canadians did not vote for that party. Had it not been for the dynamics of how the parties are split, with the beautiful province of Quebec and so on, I think things might have been different.

Today's Prime Minister gained some political capital along the way in the campaign. He made statements about the Prime Minister's “new way”. He talked about honesty and integrity. He talked about doing government differently. Where have we heard that? Back in 1993 we heard almost exactly the same phrase. “We came here to do government differently,” said the then Reform Party led by Preston Manning.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in making my comments and asking a question I first want to thank the member for what he said, which is, “We do not live in a perfect world”. He is so right.

However, in making my comment I will go back to the parliamentary secretary who spoke earlier and said that we were either going to choose to rectify the wrongs that were made, which we all tried to do, or we were going to continue to poison the environment for Canadians. It would be sad to bring out this type of feeling for Canadians in the House. He said that nothing had been done, that there was no accountability and no money was paid back. I do not want to use the words that he lied because it is improper language in the House of Commons but I would say that he was intellectually dishonest and I will provide two examples.

Once he was identified, Mr. Coffin went through the courts and then paid restitution in excess of $1 million to the country. Mr. Brault is before the courts to be sentenced and, maybe, to pay back money to the country. Once we found out who the culprits were we took every means through the legal system to address the situation. We do not live in a perfect world.

I would encourage those members, as they are the party for which two out of three Canadians did not vote, to stop poisoning this environment with that type of vocabulary. I urge them to stop doing so.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I congratulate you on your new position.

I am appalled to hear those comments from a veteran parliamentarian. She uses the word being respectful. For God's sake we sat in this honourable chamber for years in government and we all heard from that party which is now in government, and with the greatest of respect, even though two out of three Canadians voted against it. I remind the members of that. It is trying to teach us to be respectful. It is that party which used words such as “crooks, criminals, thieves”.

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, April 6th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment.

I congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa West—Nepean on his election and on his move from provincial to federal politics.

The hon. member talked about accountability. He spoke about the public servants, that they are not to blame. I believe that in all services, whether they be public or private, there is no perfection. There is always a problem somewhere. I would be very happy to give the minister a copy of the front page of a newspaper where the Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, said at the first inquiry initiated from her report, “public servants broke just about every rule in the book”.

I am not here to stand up and blame all the public servants. I am saying that there was a fault. We went in and cleaned it up, which brings me to my question about the accountability act.

Today, there is an unelected appointed senator--another broken promise--who is going to be heading the biggest department in government. As a government accountable to the people supposedly under the accountability act, how can we ask him questions about procurement, for example? How are we going to ask questions to the new minister who does not sit in the House of Commons? The way I see it and the way most Canadians see it, we are elected by the people to be accountable here. Where is that minister going to be accountable?

[Criminal Code, November 14th, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to pick up on what the hon. member said earlier in terms of human victims and he is so right. I do not think there are any members in the House, no matter which side of the political spectrum they sit, who do not put first and foremost the value of human life and of course everything else.

I remember not too long ago in the greater city of Toronto we had problems with gangs. Chief Fantino at that time made a comment and I want to thank him again publicly. He said that had it not been for the anti-gang legislation that the Liberals brought in, he would have not been in a position to address this horrendous issue which he did admirably. Most recently, Chief Blair, the new chief of police, made a similar comment, that the laws are there, but the judiciary is not enforcing them.

If the hon. member wishes, I can show him the statements from the chiefs of police. Perhaps the judiciary today should look at them because officers have said to me repeatedly, “The laws are there. We apprehend these criminals. We bring them into the system. Then all of a sudden something happens. They get a slap on the hand. They get something wishy-washy and here we go again”.

Perhaps the time has come for us to look at the system beyond just making laws. We can make all the laws in the world, but unless they are implemented, unless they are enforced, nothing will happen.

[Cyprus, November 2nd, 2005]

Mr. Speaker, I, along with the Canada-Cyprus parliamentary friendship group, today had the opportunity and the pleasure of welcoming to the Hill His Excellency the Ambassador of Cyprus to the United States and High Commissioner of Cyprus to Canada, Mr. Evriviades, along with His Excellency the Consul General Mr. Vryonides, along with Mr. Sophocleous, the President of the Canadian Justice Committee for Cyprus.

Today these gentlemen talked to us about the Cyprus of yesterday, today and tomorrow. This nation has come a long way since the illegal invasion of July 1974. Most impressive was when they were asked, “What does Cyprus want today?” Their response was, “Cyprus doesn't want nothing, nothing more than what any civil society is asking today, that the rule of law be applied and justice and security for all civilized people”.

The time has come for a solution to the Cyprus issue.