Paul Calandra

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I have to clarify that the investments I had been talking about were actually in the riding of the member for Markham—Unionville and not--

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Yes, that is true, they did cut health care. They did cut transfers to the provinces.

I am glad the hon. member actually talked about infrastructure because in my riding and in the riding I share with the hon. member for Markham—Unionville, the skating rinks, the community centres, the emergency preparedness centre, the new hockey arena, these are lasting things that everyone will enjoy. The women I speak to are so proud and very excited, and know the best days are ahead. In my riding, 51% of the people are women. They are heads of business, the heads of government--

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I cannot help but get up to ask a question. We hear a lot from the opposite side and from this member about how close the Liberals were, after 13 years, of getting things accomplished. They were close on child care. Of course, it was promised in 1993, but they did not actually get it done. They were close on Kelowna, but it was toward the end of the mandate. They did not get the job done.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit to being a little confused by the member's speech. Perhaps I missed it. The Liberals like to talk about Brian Mulroney and the Conservative government a lot, but I must have missed it when the 1993 elected Liberal government cancelled the GST. Perhaps I missed the free trade agreement with the United States that it cancelled, or the North American free trade agreement that it cancelled. I must have missed all of those things, or was it just that it took over every single economic thing the previous Conservative government did to recover from years of Liberal mismanagement and ran with it?

He talks about cuts. We all know it is very easy to cut the budget on the backs of the provinces like the Liberal government did. We all know that it cut $25 billion in transfers. Thank goodness we have people like the member for Dufferin—Caledon and our Minister of Finance, who dealt with that situation when the Liberal government simply transferred their debt onto all the provinces.

The Liberals did not cut their own spending. They did not look at their own health. They just transferred the responsibility onto a different level of government because they never had the courage to deal with the problems themselves.

That is why Canadians threw them out of office. That is why Canada, under the leadership of the current Prime Minister, now leads the world. That is why we are creating jobs. That is why our economy is starting to turn around. That is why, in the second year of the economic action plan, more countries all over the world would change places with Canada in a second. They are excited by what Canada is doing. They are studying what Canada is doing because we are a successful country. Unlike the members opposite, we know that Canada's best days are ahead of us.

I must have missed where the Liberals voted against all the budgets and throne speeches that we have presented since coming to office. As far as I know, they voted for every one of those budgets and the economic action plan. Good for them. That is what Canadians want: a focus on jobs. That is what we are doing and that is what we are giving them.

[Petitions, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from the good people of Oak Ridges—Markham, specifically from the King area of my riding, the equestrian capital of Canada. They, too, have a petition with respect to a universal declaration on animal cruelty, which I will not repeat. The member for Mississauga South read the petition quite ably.

[The Budget, March 8th, 2010]

Mr. Speaker, last week the award-winning Minister of Finance produced yet another jobs and growth budget that will continue to fuel our economic recovery and create the jobs of tomorrow.

We are fully implementing year two of Canada's economic action plan because we know that the economy is the most important issue for all Canadians. Yet just days after we presented the throne speech and budget, the Liberal member for Scarborough—Agincourt is calling for an election.

Last year, while we were fighting the recession, the Liberal Party voted time and time again against Canada's recovery by trying to force an unwanted and unnecessary election. When the member for Scarborough—Agincourt ignores the benefits of Canada's economic action plan in favour of an unwanted election, he proves what we have been saying all along, that his leader is not in it for Canada, he is in it for himself.

[THE BUDGET, March 8th, 2010]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's comments. I am dumbfounded why she and her party have decided not to vote in favour of the budget.

A member of the government operations and estimates committee, I know she pays a lot of attention to small and medium-sized businesses. This budget addresses that. It provides new funding and resources for small and medium sized enterprises.

I know Quebec is an extraordinary jurisdiction for manufacturers. The budget outlines the elimination of tariffs on our manufacturers. In fact, I think we are the only jurisdiction in the world to do that. I am not sure how that cannot impact positively on the manufacturers of Quebec.

On page 236 of the English version of the budget, it outlines another $1 billion for social housing in the country on top of another $1 billion that was already committed last year as part of our economic action plan.

I know the member was in the House for year one of our economic action plan. That plan has seen over 7,000 projects across Canada, including in Quebec, for roads, bridges, sewers and other infrastructure that will allow our businesses to compete with anybody and that will allow our communities to grow. I am not sure why she is voting against that.

As a newly appointed member of the status of women committee later today, I look forward to meeting with women, and continue to do that in my riding. Those women tell me they are energized, excited and confident that they can compete with anybody in Canada and anywhere in the world. I have a lot more faith than they do—

[Human Resources and Skills Development, December 9th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is focused on what matters to Canadians, namely creating and protecting jobs. The work-sharing program is an example of how our economic action plan is making a positive difference in the lives of Canadian families. In fact, in the Toronto area, Global Upholstery is participating in the work-sharing program. As a result, close to 1,000 workers are able to continue to provide for their families.

Could the Minister for Human Resources and Skills Development please update the House on how the work-sharing program is continuing to protect Canadian jobs right across this country?

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, for the hon. member's information, it was actually Clifford Olson not Barry Olson who was responsible for killing a number of children in British Columbia.

It is hard to listen to the member when in his previous question he said that we do not need to talk about the victims. He said that if a murderer is nice in jail, if the murderer says please and thank you, if the murderer opens the door for people and is a good boy in jail, then somehow the murderer should be allowed to approach the courts, approach the people of Canada for an early release after 15 years. He went on further to say that the murderer's family will testify that the murderer has changed his or her ways, that the murderer is actually a different person than when he or she was killing people.

Is the member truly serious in suggesting that the faint hope clause should stay and that we should tell murderers that if they are nice in jail we might let them out early? I may be an old fashioned type of guy raised by old fashioned parents but I believe the minimum standard expected in our prison system is good behaviour.

Why will the member not for one minute put the rights of victims ahead of criminals, just one time, especially on this bill?

[Criminal Code, November 23rd, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, let me clarify for the hon. member that the bill actually repeals the faint hope clause. It is pretty clear. All of those who are convicted of some of the most serious crimes will no longer have the ability to apply for early parole. In fact what the bill does is respect the people who made the initial sentence. When someone is convicted to 25 years in jail for a crime of murder, the jury that has convicted that person assumes the person will serve 25 years for the act that they have been convicted of.

The faint hope clause sets aside the earlier decision of a jury of the person's peers and seeks to go back and see if they cannot change their mind. We are saying that is not appropriate, that we are going to change the way that justice works, we are going to put victims ahead of criminals and we are going to make sure that people who do the most serious crimes will do the most serious of time.