Paul Calandra

[Business of Supply, October 16th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, whenever the hon. member gets up and speaks he makes it quite clear why Canadians have never given the NDP a mandate to govern this country and why in the province of Ontario the NDP was only thankfully given one mandate and thrown out of office, never to come close to the halls of government ever again.

From 1990 through 1995 that member was a member of a government in the province of Ontario that prorogued the legislature after sitting for only 90 days. That government introduced a budget at a table. The finance minister at the time, Floyd Laughren, dropped the budget on a table at a press conference and that was the end of it. An election was called after that. That government sat for 90 days. I do not remember that hon. member's outrage at the fact that democracy, when he was in office, was thwarted and that Ontarians were only given 90 days.

Specifically on omnibus legislation, I recall that on the particular bill that the member has been referencing, the NDP brought forward 1,200 amendments. Who brought those amendments forward? Is the member saying that none of the members of the NDP actually read the bill and brought those 1,200 amendments forward? Who brought those amendments forward if it wasn't—?

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not just sure that the NDP members are actually debating the right bill. I wonder if they have actually read the bill and the title of the bill because the bill is about the removing of foreign criminals from Canada. It is not about removing or punishing Canadian citizens. It is not about devaluing the hard work of immigrants like my parents who have come to this country. It is about removing people who have broken the law in this country so that the rest of the country can be safe and secure. That is what it is about.

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

I know they do not want to hear the actual truth because NDP members have had a great deal of difficulty with the truth lately, but we--

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. To be clear, people who break the law--

[Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act, October 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, my parents were immigrants to Canada and they worked very hard to help build this country.

A couple of examples that NDP members have used have been about individuals who come to Canada but choose not to become Canadian citizens.

In one example the member talked about someone who came to Canada at the age of seven but at the age of twenty ran into difficulties with the law.

Another example from the previous speaker was about somebody who comes to Canada but has such an attachment to the country he came from that he chooses not to take out Canadian citizenship, although his kids are Canadian. He gets into trouble with the law and is sent back to his home country.

Is it the position of the New Democratic Party that the value of Canadian citizenship is so weak that the Government of Canada and the people of Canada should continue to carry on their backs individuals who do not make a commitment to this country?

Is it the position of the NDP that those individuals who break the law should not suffer the consequences of not valuing Canadian citizenship enough to take out Canadian citizenship after many years, and of breaking our laws?

Is it the position of the NDP that the value of Canadian citizenship is so low that we should not have laws in place to protect Canadians from coast to coast to coast? Is that what the NDP is saying?

[World Sight Day, October 2nd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to celebrate the launch of World Sight Day 2012.

On October 11, eyesight related organizations throughout Canada will be joining forces to draw attention to the global issue of avoidable blindness.

In Canada, more than 4.25 million people, nearly one in eight, are living with some form of eye disease, leaving them at risk for partial or complete blindness.

Each year, more than 45,000 Canadians lose their vision at a cost of $15.8 billion to Canadian taxpayers and yet 80% of blindness is avoidable.

With one person in the world losing their sight every five seconds and one child every minute, Canada has a responsibility to play a leadership role in reversing this trend at home and abroad.

Thanks to the efforts of volunteer organizations like CNIB that support international initiatives such as VISION 2020, Canada is vigorously leading the way.

[Reflecting the Realities of Canadian Artists Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, at the outset, let me thank the hon. member for bringing this bill forward. I had the opportunity to work with him on the Canadian heritage committee for some time. I know he has moved on to other responsibilities with official languages, and I wish him well.

As Canadians we are very proud of our artists. Of course, this government is very proud of our artists. We are not talking just about people like Justin Bieber or Celine Dion, Canadian artists who are very well known internationally, but we are talking also about people in our local communities across the country.

In my riding there are two extraordinary singer-songwriters, one by the name of Quisha Wint and the other by the name of Dallas James. They are incredible singer-songwriters. Quisha, who has just released a spectacular album, is incredibly talented. Dallas James performed at my Christmas concert last year and really wowed the audience.

I think we would all agree that our artists and musicians across the country make us very proud. In many ways they are the custodians of Canada's identity abroad. They are the ones who help display everything that we as Canadians are proud of. At home we are extremely proud of the efforts they make on our behalf.

This government has been investing extraordinary amounts of money in the arts and culture since being elected. We understand how important the arts and culture sector is to our economy. That is why when we introduced our economic action plan, we did not just maintain funding for the arts, but we actually increased it. In the next phase of Canada's economic action plan, the government will continue to maintain these record levels of support. That is in contrast with what other jurisdictions around the world are doing with respect to arts and culture.

In the United States, for example, the National Endowment for the Arts runs on less money now than it did 20 years ago. Last year Arts Council England saw its funding cut by 30% and its operating costs cut in half. In Australia the budget for the Australia Council for the Arts is $163 million per year. In Canada this year the budget for the Canada Council for the Arts is $180 million.

In fact, since this government was elected, we decided to actually increase funding to the Canada Council for the Arts by 20%, which is the largest funding increase for the council in decades. We have kept that increase despite the fact that the world economy continues to be under some serious pressures. We made a commitment on this side of the House to bring our budget back into balance, to continue cutting taxes for Canadian families, to continue investing in job creation initiatives, but we have been able to maintain funding for the arts and culture, and we are extraordinarily proud of that.

Let us look at another example. Michigan recently passed a budget that reduced the state's arts budget by 80%.

We are not doing that. Through Canada's economic action plan, we have invested in theatres, festivals and museums. We have invested in the travelling exhibitions indemnification program. Our museums not only can bring in more important exhibits to our national museums, but the national museums can actually send more of their displays across Canada so that more Canadians can see the collections that we have and truly understand how important our national museums are to our country.

We have created two new national museums. The new Canadian Museum for Human Rights in Winnipeg is well under way. It is an absolutely spectacular museum. Over the summer I had the extraordinary fortune to visit Pier 21 in Halifax. It is a museum that means a lot to me as both my parents came into Canada through Pier 21. To have been able to go back there as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage and see where my parents came into Canada many years ago was truly an honour. This, too, is a spectacular museum.

We should all be very proud of the work that our national museums do in helping maintain our Canadian history.

We have continued to support the arts and culture sector. People are noticing.

The Canadian Opera Company said that the Canadian government has steadfastly demonstrated its dedication to developing a country where creativity and innovation are supported and that it remains extremely grateful for the government's continued support. It talked about this in the context of Canada's economic action plan that was introduced by the Minister of Finance and passed by this House.

The Canadian Museums Association said that it was “very pleased with this budget” and that “museums are being identified as important generators of jobs and growth in Canadian society”.

We support and value the arts, not only because of what they bring to Canada culturally, but because of their importance to the Canadian economy. The hon. member for Jeanne-Le Ber mentioned the importance of the artistic community and the arts to Canada's economy. The arts represent some $46 billion in economic activity and about 635,000 Canadian jobs. To put that into context, that is twice the size of Canada's forestry industry. What we do for the arts is extraordinarily important to the Canadian economy.

In recent years, Canada has been the birthplace of some major global entertainment companies, such as Lionsgate Entertainment. There are other stunning Canadian success stories throughout the arts and culture sector.

Make no mistake that the arts are a massive economic generator in Canada. That sector is a source of jobs, investment, growth, and strong economic activity.

For all of those reasons, our Conservative government will continue to invest in arts and culture. We are going to continue to do that in programs that we think work for our artists, programs that work for our economy and help continue to generate economic activity.

The member talked about the fairness of this proposal. We have to look at what is being proposed in the context of other industries. I was glad that he brought that up.

Let us look at income averaging. As a former insurance broker, I am glad he brought up insurance brokers. There are great times and there are bad times. Income averaging for insurance brokers probably would have been a good thing for me in my career. It also would have been a good thing for farmers and car salesmen. There are many industries in this country that would benefit from income averaging. The dilemma is that this bill would decide who the winners and losers are, which industries are more important than others.

Our tax system has been, and should continue to be, based on fairness. One of the things that a government cannot and should not do is try to pick winners and losers in the tax system. We are not going to do that. We are going to continue to focus on creating jobs and opportunities. We will continue to introduce taxes for all Canadians, not just for one sector and not another.

Professor Kevin Milligan looked closely at the proposal and concluded the following:

[T]he NDP's tax policy proposals still need some more rehearsal time.... [I]ncome averaging is an extremely clumsy apparatus for supporting the arts -- to the extent it would even help at all. Let the debate on support for culture flourish, but let's keep income averaging out of it.

He mentioned that because, as was mentioned by one of the speakers, income averaging was tried in the 1970s and 1980s and it was abandoned as something that was not only unfair, but it was unworkable, hard to administer and actually did not achieve the results it sought to achieve. For those reasons, we have abandoned income averaging in the past.

Our government is going to continue to support arts and culture. That sector is extraordinarily important for economic activity. It is also a very important source of Canadian pride. When we see the success of our artists and our museums, we are very proud.

Again I thank the hon. member for bringing this forward and giving us an opportunity to discuss it further. I too look forward to some of the debate going forward.

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for almost answering that question. He can help me if I am wrong, but I think what he did say is that the NDP never once talked about this when it was cutting deals to keep the Liberal government in power, or when it was cutting deals to try to circumvent the popular will of the Canadian people when they voted to put this government into office. Principle is not something the NDP actually stands on. The NDP members like to make great speeches that they do not really believe in, but when push comes to shove it is all about their trying to get on this side of the House. They do not actually stand for anything.

I say to the NDP that it is probably not a strategy that works very well because look what it did for the Liberals when they stood for nothing. They got into that little corner of the House.

Could the hon. member reiterate for me if he believes this is a good policy. Does he and the Liberal Party believe that this will actually help Canadian families who are in need? Is he and the Liberal Party, unlike the NDP which always makes its decision before actually reading anything, willing to work with the government to actually improve the situation of Canadian families across the country?

[Helping Families in Need Act, September 26th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Liberals will be supporting the legislation. The NDP have obviously been shamed by the Canadian people into supporting what is a very good bill, a bill which would help a lot of Canadian families.

Obviously we all hope that we are never put in that situation, but thankfully the government has brought the bill forward.

The member served in a Liberal government and in an opposition that cut two deals with the NDP. One was to keep the Liberals in power over a budget bill and the second was a coalition agreement. NDP members always talk about how the Liberals raided the EI fund. I am wondering if in either of those two deals, the NDP ever made it a condition that the funds the Liberals took from the EI system would be put back into the EI system. Did the NDP ever make that a condition or is it the usual NDP garbage of saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite?

The NDP has absolutely nothing. Those members do not care about Canadians, workers or the economy. They will do anything to get from that side to this side of the House and they know Canadians will never let them do that.

Could my colleague tell me if the NDP ever asked to have that money restored back to the EI fund?

[Corrections and Conditional Release Act, September 19th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, first let me commend the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry for bringing this legislation forward in the House. He always works very hard for his constituents. He is one of the people who, after I was first elected, was very helpful in helping me better understand the role of a member of Parliament and how things work in this place.

This is a great bill that the people in my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham are very excited to have me support. It adds to the many great positive pieces of legislation that we have brought forward to protect Canadian families and individuals. It is another reason why Canadians know that they can put their faith in those of us on this side of the House to always look after the rights of hard-working, law-abiding Canadians.

The NDP has put forward an amendment and I want to say a couple of things on the record about that. I know that while the NDP amendment aims to reconcile the potential discrepancy in definition of a spouse between the French and English versions of the bill, I note that it is limited to only child, spouse and conjugal cohabitant support orders. The problem with this is that it may actually exclude other forms of family law orders established by provincial law, such as parental support.

The reason why the amendment by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry is far superior is that it would achieve a better resolution. It relies on the language of existing federal legislation to make sure that this loophole is closed. I applaud the member for putting that amendment forward because that is what parliamentarians always try to do, to bring forward private member's legislation in the House. This government is very well known for consulting with and listening to Canadians and making sure we have the opportunity to truly respect the will of Canadians. We make the changes that are necessary to do that. I applaud the member for doing that.

The member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry's amendment would ensure better consistency with both federal and provincial laws. For those reasons, I cannot support the NDP's amendment and will be supporting the amendment by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I will take a quick moment to thank the hon. member for bringing this bill forward. It is very important and another example of how this government and members on this side of the House are working every single day to make sure our communities are protected. Hard-working, law-abiding Canadians can count on this government to make sure that we do everything possible to keep communities safe.

I will be supporting the amendment by the member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry because of the things I have mentioned.