Paul Calandra

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the information requested consists of thousands of records, mostly available in original language only. It is not possible to produce and translate the requested information in the time period required for this response.

[Petitions, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition today from St. Patrick's Church, which is the church I attended as a young kid. It is next to St. Patrick School, the grade school I went to in Markham, which is a great school.

The petitioners ask the government to consider international aid policies that promote small farms, especially the role of women.

I am excited by a petition like this because it also gives us an opportunity to highlight some of the great work we are doing in Haiti with our Canadian embassy and McGill University to promote such farming techniques, and the great work by Professor Dion, the brother of the Liberal member of Parliament in the House. We continue to do that, and I am proud to present this petition on behalf of my constituents.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for over 150 years.

Back to the topic, of course, of expenses and makeup, I would suggest that he turn around and look at the Liberal member of Parliament for, I think it is Mississauga—Brampton South, who was accused of charging taxpayers for makeup expenses during a campaign. Of course, that party is littered with individuals who have been forced to repay. There are still members in that caucus who have not even paid their campaign debt.

They are given—

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised to be getting a question about expenses from that particular member of Parliament. Really? Honestly, this is coming from a party that has $40 million outstanding. Some of those members there I know had some issues with respect to their living allowances and were ordered to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars. I am not sure what member that might have been over there, but I am sure he will investigate that.

Of course, we do not comment on things before the court. Taxpayers did not pay any of these expenses.

[Government Services, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, since we have been elected, our number one priority has been the economy. That is why we put thousands of dollars back into the pockets of hard-working Canadian taxpayers. We understand that they work hard and that they play by the rules.

In my riding of Oak Ridges—Markham they get up every morning and get to work. What they want their government to do is put more money back in their pockets to invest in their priorities. This is why we have done that. We have increased the universal child care benefit to $160. We have increased and made a new commitment from $60 for children from 6 to 17.

That is putting more money in the pockets of Canadians. While the NDP take $2.7 million out of their pockets, we are putting it back in.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with your suggestion, I will do just that.

Talking about taxpayers not getting value for their money, I wonder what the taxpayers of Scarborough Southwest think about their member sending over $140,000 to an illegal office in Montreal, that the member for Davenport sent over $1,000 to that same illegal office, that the member for Beaches—East York did the same thing, that the former member for Trinity—Spadina did the same thing. Sixty-eight members of the NDP caucus sent millions of dollars to an illegal office and they should pay it back.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, certainly touching on the administration of the House is very important. That is why there are 68 members of the NDP who owe taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal offices. The member herself owes over $25,000 to the taxpayers for these illegal offices. I suggest the member encourage the other 67 members to pay back the $2.7 million they owe the taxpayers.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for 150 years.

What is also clear is that House of Commons resources cannot be used for partisan political activities like the NDP did.

The Leader of the Opposition signed off on employees working in Ottawa, suggesting they were working and living in Ottawa, but actually they were working in an illegal, partisan office in Montreal.

The member for Scarborough Southwest thought this was so impressive that as opposed to giving $140,000 in resources to his community, he funnelled it through an illegal office in Montreal.

[Ethics, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the constitutional practice on this has been clear for over 150 years.

What is also very clear to Canadians is the fact that House of Commons resources cannot be used for partisan political purposes. That is why I encourage the 68 members of the NDP caucus who owe Canadian taxpayers $2.7 million for illegal offices to pay it back. The Leader of the Opposition could show some leadership by repaying the $400,000 that he personally owes taxpayers for illegal offices.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 2nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to part (a) of the question, the decision to share information provided by RADARSAT-2 with the Ukrainian armed forces was made in December 2014.

With regard to part (b), the Government of Canada has demonstrated its support for Ukraine and efforts to defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. Specifically, the Government of Canada has taken a number of other steps to help the Ukrainian people as they work to restore political and economic stability, most notably through electoral assistance, support for economic and social development, and military training and non-lethal security supplies to Ukraine’s armed forces.

With regard to part (c), inquiries were made by the Embassy of Ukraine in Canada during the summer of 2014.

With regard to part (d), officials from the Canadian Space Agency; the Department of National Defence/Canadian Armed Forces; the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development; and the Privy Council Office participated in discussions on the possibility of sharing RADARSAT-2 imagery products with Ukraine.

With regard to part (e), the Government of Canada deliberated carefully and thoroughly before reaching its decision to share information of this nature with the Government of Ukraine. This included prioritized consideration of Canada’s defence and security needs.

With regard to part (f), extensive consultations have been held among the above listed departments since the summer of 2014.

With regard to parts (g) and (h), in processing parliamentary returns, the Government of Canada applies the Privacy Act and the principles set out in the Access to Information Act. Information has been withheld on the grounds that it refers to confidential third party information as well as information that would be injurious to international relations and the defence of Canada.

With regard to parts (i) and (j), the decision to share imagery products with Ukraine has had no negative effect on Canada’s ability to use RADARSAT-2 for other purposes, including those supporting the defence and security of Canada.