Paul Calandra

[National Defence, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that it was the Minister of Veterans Affairs who proactively asked the Auditor General to conduct a review of the existing mental health services and supports offered Canadian veterans by his department. I would also like to draw to the attention of the member opposite the fact that it was the minister who acted promptly and announced new and expanded mental health initiatives for veterans, still-serving members, and their families, which was a huge step forward.

The minister did not stop there. He also announced a mental health services for veterans action plan to further support these investments and to continue to be forward-thinking and proactive. We will provide more timely access to psychological assessments and treatments. Also, the new operational stress injury clinic in Halifax slated to open in 2015 in, I believe, the riding of the member opposite, as well as satellite clinics across Canada, will give veterans faster access to specialized mental health services. We will strengthen our outreach efforts, targeting the reserve force as well as families and family physicians.

We will invest in treatment and research and work with the Mental Health Commission of Canada to develop mental health first aid programs for veterans and their families. The expansion of the operational stress injury support program with 15 new peer support coordinators will also help veterans and their families seek treatment.

The member opposite highlighted a number of things. The Prime Minister today highlighted the fact that the announcement that we made recently was for $200 million. The Prime Minister also highlighted today that it would be over six years, while the member opposite talks about it being over 50 years. Here is a note to the member opposite: not all veterans' issues will be resolved in six years. It might take a little bit longer. That is why the life of this program will be longer than the six years that we announced.

He talks about funding for veterans services. This government has actually increased funding for veterans services to levels that have never before been seen in this country. When the member opposite and his party sat on this side of the House in government, they had the opportunity to respect veterans and chose to do just the opposite. That is why, when we came into office in 2006, we had to immediately set on a new course of respect with veterans. That is why we increased funding to veterans services, as I said, to record levels, and it is why we have opened up new clinics across this country. It is so that veterans have better access to services. That is why we are improving psychological services for veterans. All told, we have provided in excess of $5 billion more than the Liberals provided.

One thing we do every single year in this place is make sure that Veterans Affairs has all of the resources it needs to properly fund all of the services that Parliament has approved. We do that every single year. That is what we have done. We are very proud of the work that we have done in government, but, more importantly, we are proud of the work that our veterans and the Canadian Armed Forces have done. That is why on this side of the House we have continued to support them at record levels. We will continue to do that, not only this year but in the years to come.

Yes, the member is right. As long as we are on this side of the House, for the next 50 or 100 years we will continue to support the veterans who have made this country such a great place to live. The member is quite correct. As long as Conservatives are here, we will always stand up for veterans, whether it is 10 years, 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, or even 50 years, despite the objections of the members opposite.

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as I just said, there are strict personal donation limits that were brought in by this government under the accountability act. Corporate and union donations are not allowed. Anybody found in violation of that will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. If SNC-Lavalin has done that, we would repay any of those funds, as we would expect of all parties.

At the same time, we were very disappointed when the NDP accepted $300,000 worth of illegal union donations, of course, in contravention of the law that we brought forward in 2006.

[Ethics, December 2nd, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as members know, there are strict personal donation limits of $1,200 a year. Of course, no corporate or union donations are allowed. That has been the case since 2006, when this government brought in the accountability act.

If SNC-Lavalin is found to have donated illegally, we would repay those funds, as we would expect of all parties.

[Respect for Communities Act, December 1st, 2014]

It is time to put out those crosses that were burning in your riding apparently. Turn around and tell the people in the gallery that their opinions do not matter.

[Respect for Communities Act, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult to listen to a Liberal talk about consulting and listening to Canadians. The member talks about the fact that we want consultation in this bill and said that because our opinions might be different than hers we do not care about people. By that measure, the government that she was a member of, which cut $50 billion in health care, really did not care about Canadians because it did it unilaterally. The minister of state also talked about hepatitis C. I guess the Liberals really did not care about Canadians then. This is coming from a member who won the election in her riding by 33% or 34%. Therefore, 67% of the people in her riding do not agree with her.

The reality is that this bill gives people the opportunity to have a say. The real reason that the Liberals do not approve of that is because they know that Canadians will not always agree with their position. That is the real reason they are having trouble supporting this bill.

I do not need an answer from the member; it is more of a comment that the Liberals never have and never will ever respect what Canadians have to say. That is why they were increasingly reduced, election after election, from opposition to third-party status. I am sure after the next election, Canadians will put them out into the lobby and the dust.

[Respect for Communities Act, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am actually glad that for once I have the ability to agree with the member opposite. Since 2003 and the election of the Liberal government in Ontario, there has been no common sense in the Province of Ontario. If there were common sense in the Province of Ontario, it would not be running a massive deficit, it would not be increasing taxes on its taxpayers and it would not have to make disastrous decisions that will cost all Canadians. We would not be in the situation we are in Ontario, where it now receives equalization. It is only because of the efforts of this government that we actually have a housing strategy that takes people off the street.

The Minister of State for Social Development has outlined a number of initiatives that we have done to make a difference on housing.

The other consistent thing is that every time we bring something forward, those members vote against it.

[Respect for Communities Act, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let me put on the record, because I do not want there to be any confusion, that in my riding, in my small town of Stouffville, I do not want a site like this on my main street. In Markham, I do not want a site like this on the main street. As the elected member of Parliament, I would fight something like this coming to my communities because I do not approve of it.

Having said that, the bill would offer an opportunity for communities to consult. I recognize the fact that not everybody might agree with my opinion on this. That is why the bill would allow for consultation.

It is the member opposite who has suggest that actually going to the people in communities is wrong. Somehow, if we do that, they will not agree. The bill would allow that consultation.

Let me very clear. If something like this were proposed in the communities I represent, I would certainly be standing up against it because I simply do not agree that this is the best way to address this problem.

However, I appreciate that she has a difference of opinion and the bill would allow her and other people who might disagree with me and those who agree with me the opportunity to actually have a say in the process for the first time.

[Respect for Communities Act, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on the debate on Bill C-2, especially after the previous member spoke.

We saw that the amendments provided by the Green Party followed the same basic line of debate it has shown on other bills in this House. If we do not agree with the Green Party members, then we must be wrong. Those Canadians who disagree with the opposition must all be wrong.

Not to shift too far off topic, but we saw that very same approach in a recent debate about the Rouge Park, in my riding. Farmers, who had land expropriated from them by the Liberal government 40 years ago, asked for their land to be protected so that they could farm forever. That is what the people in my community wanted. That is what the farmers wanted. That was what they all asked for. What did the Green Party members want? They did not care what farmers wanted or what the people in my community wanted. They actually wanted to listen to someone else. They wanted to listen to outside influences and those environmentalists who want to throw these farmers off of their land.

That is why I find the comments of the leader of the Green Party so troubling. My word. In this bill, we are asking people to consult with the community before they put something in their community. Imagine that. What did the leader of the Green Party say? It was that consultations are just a way of finding objections. That is all they would do. They would just find objections.

Let me get this straight. We are not supposed to consult, because people might be opposed to what is being forced on them in their community. This is obviously not something we are going to do on this side of the House. I am sure she would agree, and members of the opposition would agree, that if what they are talking about is supported throughout Canada in communities across this country, including in my own small-town community of Stouffville and Markham, then really, there should not be a lot of objections.

Honestly, we have to take in the opinions of the people who actually live, work, play, and pay taxes. We have to take in the opinions of the business owners, the people who create jobs and create economic activity and opportunity. We have to put them in the line of consulting on something like this. That is why we brought forward this legislation, which, of course, respects those aspects that were brought forward by the Supreme Court.

The member said that we had to add a letter to the alphabet. It went from a to z, and then we had to add z.1. Yes, absolutely. It is because we want to make sure that the people who are proposing these sites and the places they are proposing to put these sites meet certain minimum standards.

The member talked about having to provide resumes of the people who would be working there. Of course we are going to want to make sure, as this legislation would, that the people who work in a proposed facility have the ability to do what they say they are going to do. If we are going to bring illicit drugs into small towns, villages, and communities across this country, then I think the people who live in those small towns have the right to know that this is what is coming to their Main Street and that these are the people who would be working there. Do they have the ability to do what they say they can do or what they are being hired to do? Do they have criminal records?

I think it is just common sense that if we are going to bring this type of facility into small towns and communities across this country that we know the people who are sponsoring this and that the people who will be working within the facility have the ability to do what they say they are going to do in a professional manner and can protect the communities in which they apply to do this. I think most Canadians would agree with that.

The member took exception to the fact that the bill would also ask that the proponents seek comments from the local police chief. Far be it from me to suggest it, but obviously the local police chief and the local police know the community. In my town of Stouffville, in York Region, Chief Eric Jolliffe and the local superintendent of No.5 District actually know what is happening in communities.

When a proposal for a development is brought forward in my community, I know it is done by the town. However, I often go to the police and ask what they think about what these people have brought forward in terms of development, safety, and how police, fire, and ambulance would work.

When we talk about bringing controlled substances like heroin into a community, people might want to ask police if it is the right spot to do it. What are the things the community needs to be worried about? I do not know of any Canadians who would suggest otherwise. Actually, I do. Opposition members would, because they are afraid that there might be instances when the community does not agree, local police do not agree, the people who live in the community do not agree, and business owners who hire young people do not agree. Opposition members are afraid there might be objections. In fact, the leader of the Green Party suggested that this is the reason there should be no consultations whatsoever and that Canadians should be completely left out of the process. Clearly, that is not something we are going to do. We are going to involve Canadians in these decisions.

As part of this legislation, we must also provide information on security measures and record keeping. If a community accepts a facility like this, I think it stands to reason that it is going to want to know what security measures will be put in place so the community can be assured that it is safe for the people who live in the community and safe for the people who will use the facility. That is obviously an important part of the process of making sure that communities are involved.

As I said earlier, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands talked about criminal record checks being too onerous and that it is impossible to find out who is going to be working in a facility. I suggest that if people are going to be hired in a facility like this, it is probably a good idea to get criminal record checks to make sure that the people can work in that facility. That is a common-sense addition. I think most Canadians would agree with that, with the exception of the opposition.

The bill would also allow the minister to put a notice of application on a proposed site. In Ontario, as in all jurisdictions across this country, when someone applies for a liquor licence, a notice goes on the window so that the community knows and can comment. It is common sense. People need to know what is going on in their communities.

Apparently the opposition does not agree that when someone is proposing a heroin injection site, there should be a notice for the community. Imagine the surprise of people in the community when all of a sudden the site opened up. People would ask why they were not told what was going on. Imagine the people who would then try to use this facility in an area where people in the community were not consulted. They would have to face the fact that people might be protesting because they were upset by the process that went on.

Obviously, keeping people informed of the process from start to end is a good idea. Letting municipal politicians, those elected municipally, know what is going on and having the opportunity to comment, I think Canadians would agree, is a good idea.

The bill would allow for inspections. Once a facility like this opened, if it was doing good work, people would want to make sure it continued to do good work. Again, that is a very common-sense addition.

The things that have been brought forward in this bill would strengthen the ability of communities across this country to participate in something like this if that is what they wanted. It would allow them to have a say. It would not push things on communities they did not want.

It has been the hallmark of this government, since we were elected in 2006, to listen to the people who pay our bills. When Canadians send almost 50¢ of every $1 they make to politicians at all levels, and thankfully, under our government, I think tax freedom day is now 28 days earlier than it was before, all they ask for is a say in the things we are doing.

When something like this is going to be put in a community, if it actually helps, if it makes a big difference, it should be the proponents who are prepared to stand by what they are doing. They should be the ones to bring the community onside. It should not be forced on any community.

[Ethics, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, again it was this party that actually took the influence of big money and big unions out of the political process when we banned those donations. It was one of the first things that we did when we came into office in 2006.

Unfortunately, the NDP broke that rule when it accepted $300,000 worth of illegal union donations. This House has also found the New Democrats guilty of taking some $1.5 million worth of funds allocated for non-partisan purposes from the taxpayers of this country and using it for partisan political purposes in areas of the country where they actually have no members of Parliament. They have yet to pay that money back to Canadian taxpayers. I hope they will do so very soon.

[Ethics, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, we banned corporate and union donations from the political process. We expect any individual who makes donations to political parties to follow the law. That is why we were so disappointed on this side of the House when we learned that the NDP accepted $300,000 worth of illegal union donations and were forced by Elections Canada to return that money. Of course, they still owe the Canadian taxpayers over $1.5 million for illegal satellite offices in provinces where they have no members of Parliament. I am sure Canadians are as anxious as we are to have that money returned.