Paul Calandra

[Ethics, December 1st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, when we were brought into office, we brought into place the Accountability Act. That was in response to the Liberal sponsorship scandal. We took the influence of big money and big unions out of the political process. We expect all those who donate to all political parties to follow the law.

[Questions on the Order Paper, November 28th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to (a), the crown owns the copyright in the video work.

With regard to (b), yes, for example, music is used in the “24 Seven” video series for the introduction and, from time to time, within the episode.

With regard to (c), rights for music used in the series may be acquired from different music services, depending on the music required. In some cases, royalty free compositions available under a creative commons licence may be used at no cost. In other cases, compositions are purchased from a music service. Fees for purchased compositions may be paid in accordance with usage and cost, from $1 to $30 per composition.

With regard to (d), the moral rights reside with the individuals whose rights are engaged, unless they expressly waived those rights.

With regard to (e), no one, apart from the moral rights owner, owns moral rights in any individual image, video clip, audio clip, musical work, or other work that constitutes part of the larger video work. Either the individual retains their moral rights or they are expressly waived.

Part (f) of the question is not applicable.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for that question because it is very important. I am sorry that I did not completely answer it.

Because these farmers have been on one-year leases, they have not been able to make any of the investments that the member is talking about. There are a lot of investments that they would like to make in this area, but they are not certain whether they will be farming next year. They have been forced into a type of farming that they do not want to do. They want to provide drainage ditches and reforestation in certain areas where it makes sense. They want to be part of a long-term goal to improve the environment and the climate of the area.

Bearing this in mind, it has been farmed for over 400 years and it is still the most productive farmland in all of Canada. It is still considered class 1 farmland, and that is basically under the stewardship of these very same farmers. They are willing to be a part of this, but they do not want to be told what to do, where to do it, and how to do it. They want to be there for a long time and have their tenancies guaranteed. This bill would allow them to do that.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member has not had a chance to visit the area, but she is right; there are two very different zones. There is the southern part of the park, which contains most of the natural heritage and the beauty that we would expect in a national park. In the northern part of the park, which is the federal lands, it is all class 1 farmland. It is probably the most productive farmland in all of Canada.

The farmers are willing to participate in protecting and preserving the environment in this area. It is in their best interests to do so, but they want to be on equal footing with the environmentalists in the area. They do not want to see what has happened in the Bob Hunter Memorial Park happen to them.

Are they willing to reforest along certain areas? Yes. Are they willing to look at those lands that they cannot farm and provide reforestation in those areas? Absolutely. Are they willing to take half of the land that they currently farm and reforest it? No, they are not. If they do that and accept the standards that the opposition is talking about, they have said it is a death by a thousand cuts.

We have seen this. In the southern part, where this has been done, there are virtually no farmers left in that area. That would be completely disastrous to the economy in my riding. It would lose thousands of jobs for young people and for farmers, and it would take billions of dollars of economic activity out of my riding. I would never support that.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, let us look back and see what the hon. member has accomplished in his time in government with respect to the Rouge. He has accomplished nothing.

However, he comes in to the House and pretends that he supports farmers. He used to be a farmer himself, so he supports them. However, how does he do that? It is by suggesting that taking 2,000 acres of prime farmland out of production is good for farmers. It is by telling them what they should farm, how they should farm, and where they should farm, that it is good for farmers, not to worry. He does it by presenting petitions in the House that call for the elimination of 2,000 acres. He is suggesting that it is great for farmers.

Let us look at what the Liberals have accomplished. They have accomplished nothing. It was Brian Mulroney and a Conservative government that initially set aside the $10 million. The Liberals had 13 years in office to bring forward a Rouge national park bill. Did they? No, they needed that extra year. It is like everything that the Liberals do.

Now, what are they doing? They are playing the worst kind of politics. They are stopping the protection of the Rouge for completely political reasons, despite the fact that the community wants it and farmers want it, and despite the fact that there is money set aside to accomplish it. They are playing silly, stupid political games, and the people of Ontario will not be fooled by this, just as they are no longer fooled by the provincial Liberal government.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, obviously we are angry that the province never elevated its protection of the Rouge Park. That is why we brought forward a plan that would do that in the context of an urban setting, where highways, landfills, and zoos actually exist.

That is why we brought forward a plan that would have 12 additional protections that do not exist in the park right now.

That is why we have done what Ian Buchanan, of York region, said we should do, which is to bring it under one management window so that people know what they can and cannot expect in the park.

That is why there will be 24 hours, 7 days a week, 365 days a year protection and enforcement in the park, which does not exist now.

That is why there will be no mining in the park, and before they say that there are no mines, there are. There are aggregate mines in the park. That would stop under our plan.

That is why we would provide $140 million to upgrade the protection of the natural heritage of the area, which does not exist currently.

That is why we would remove 5,000 acres from a potential airport and put it under the protection of Parks Canada.

We are going to do all of these things. The only thing we are not doing is listening to the opposition that suggests we need to evict farmers at the same time. We will not do that. We will protect the environment. We will protect the farmers. We will protect the thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of economic activity that are present in the area. We are going to do it, despite the fact that the Ontario Liberal government will not help us with that.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood says it is a lie. It is remarkable that he says it is a lie because there are all kinds of press releases. I would encourage him to read the article so he can see that his colleague from Markham—Unionville was there for the presentation of a $2 million cheque when farmers were evicted from their lands in what is now called the Bob Hunter Memorial Park in this area.

Prime farmland in 2007 was taken out of production with a smile by the same minister who was at the time parliamentary secretary to the minister of municipal affairs and housing, the provincial member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville, the federal member of Parliament for Markham—Unionville, all happy about what was about to happen with the removal of these farmers from their lands, with a $2 million cheque.

The Bob Hunter Memorial Park still is not open to the public. That is the type of park management the Liberals across the way and their friends in the provincial government are supporting. That is what farmers are afraid of, because they know what happens when they entrust their futures to other people. What happens is they suffer, as Mr. Whittamore has said, the death of 1,000 cuts.

The members opposite have talked about ecological integrity. Among the witnesses who appeared at committee, who have actually been managing the resources in that area, was Ian Buchanan of York region. He said that it was impossible, that we could not bring ecological integrity to this park not only because of Highway 401, not only because there was a landfill in the area and the Metro Zoo, but for many other reasons. Mr. Buchanan of York region government talked about the successes and stated:

In addition, I have 15 years of environmental enforcement background at three different levels of government, and what was sadly lacking among all of the framework of legislation in the past was that there was no one window for environmental protection. There were multiple layers and people didn't know who to turn to about what activities were taking place. The one window is a blessing for the Rouge Park.

Larry Noonan, as was referenced by the member for Thornhill, who is with a ratepayer group, supports the legislation that we have brought forward. It recognizes that the goal of environmental integrity is impossible to attain in this area. It also supports the continuation of farming in the area.

Many of the members opposite have referenced Friends of the Rouge Watershed, Ontario Nature and a number of other organizations. A representative of Ontario Nature appeared in committee, Caroline Schultz. We often hear members opposite say not to worry about farming, that it will be protected, that it is all okay. When Ms. Schultz was asked about a corridor, she said that she supported a 600-metre ecological corridor that would take 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland out of production, but said that we should not worry because farmers could still farm.

However, depending on the type of agricultural production that is taking place, she said there were certain types of farming that would not be compatible. Already they are making plans to eliminate farmers from the area.

On the Rouge park management plan, a number of the members opposite have submitted petitions and have talked about their support for organizations like Ontario Nature, the David Suzuki Foundation and Friends of the Rouge Watershed and how important it is.

The member for Scarborough Southwest, when speaking about the Friends of the Rouge Watershed, said, “Nothing will ever be accomplished in Rouge Park without buy-in from the Friends of the Rouge Watershed.” Who disagrees with that? The 700 farmers who actually farm in the area, and the ratepayers who actually lives in the area. The Cedar Grove ratepayers association disagrees with it. People who actually live, work, invest or play in the Rouge disagree with everything the opposition has said with respect to the Rouge and preservation.

Why are farmers so worried about what the environmental groups have put forward? It is because in the Rouge park management plan, this is a section they support. This is from the plan:

Part of protecting cultural heritage values in the park involves the continuation of active farming. Since all activities must dwell within the framework of park goal and objectives, with the highest priority being the protection and restoration of the park's natural heritage, some reduction of farm land base is recommended to permit natural restoration goals to be met.

These are the people and the policies that the members opposite are telling farmers they have to swallow yet again.

Let us talk about the 600 metre ecological corridor. I thought it was 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland that would be taken out of production. I was wrong. It is actually 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland that would need to be taken out of production to meet what the environmental groups have suggested has to happen in the Rouge Park. Let us take that into consideration.

When asked by Ms. Empringham and Mr. Whittamore what that would mean, Mr. Whittamore said it was “death by a thousand cuts”. Ms. Empringham, on behalf of farmers, suggested that people who believed that did not understand farming. The equipment is bigger and it is more intense than it was before. This would almost certainly lead to fewer people farming in the Rouge Park.

The opposition also talks at length about Mr. Robb. Why do farmers fear Jim Robb? Why do they fear the environmental groups that have signed onto this? What has Mr. Robb called our farmers?

He called our farmers industrial cash cropping farmers who planted products that harmed the environment. This was at a committee in front the city of Markham. He went on to say that he was willing to share the Rouge Park with the heritage farm community.

When we had Mr. Robb in front of our committee and asked him to describe what a heritage farmer was, he suggested that a heritage farmer was somebody who was there when the lands were expropriated.

What he was saying in front of the city of Markham was that he would share the park with the heritage farmers, but the farmers who were farming class 1 farmland in the area who did not own the land when it was seized from them did not have a right to be on that land producing.

He was on a committee with a gentleman by the name of Reesor. The Reesor family is one of the original families that actually settled that area. Mr. Reesor actually started farming in that area in 1985. He would not be considered a heritage farmer. He would be evicted, presumably, under Mr. Robb's definition, which is supported by the opposition, from those lands that he has been farming since 1985 and that his family has been farming for over 200 years.

We heard from witnesses. I have met with a number of farm groups. I met with countless constituents of mine. They all say the same thing; that we have to protect the farmers in the northern part of the Rouge.

At the same time, we have to do our best to protect the southern part of the Rouge, which is in the hands of the provincial government. At first, all the provincial government wanted was a hundred million bucks. It said, “Give us $100 million and we'll turn our backs on the Rouge. You can do whatever you want with it, just give us that $100 million.”

Alan Wells, former chair of the Rouge Park Alliance, said that had never been done before. When we called them on it, they then changed their mind and said, “Okay, maybe $100 million is asking too much.” Part of that deal was also saying that ecological integrity was important to them. However, no, it was “Give us $100 million. We'll turn our backs. Congratulations. Move forward with your park.”

We said no; that was not our priority. Our priority was to amass these lands on behalf of all Canadians and to create something special in the Rouge. That is what we are moving forward with.

Let us look at what has happened. People have been calling upon the federal government to take leadership in the Rouge for decades, and we came forward with that protection. We came forward with a plan that engaged Parks Canada.

I have not ever heard anyone in this House who would suggest that Parks Canada is not among the most professional organizations and one of the best stewards of our parkland. In fact, it is world renowned for what it has done in creating national parks and in protecting our natural heritage around this country.

Parks Canada sat down with farmers and actually changed the relationship that government had with its farmers in the area. It changed that relationship to make it more co-operative. They worked together and got the buy-in of farmers to participate in the Rouge national park.

The federal government then set aside over $140 million to create this park, to make it a reality, so that millions of people in the GTA could have access to a national park. We incorporated visitor centres so that people could understand what is important about the area. We established a farming centre to the north of the Rouge Park, so people could understand the 400-year tradition of farming in the area. To the south, there are going to be trails so people can enjoy the Rouge park. They will be able to enjoy their visitor experience. There was going to be upgrading to the environment, upgrading that the provincial government has never done.

The provincial government has put forward a set of circumstances to transfer lands, and it wants us to do what it has never done. By the way, that does not include its infrastructure demands. The provincial Liberal government said, “You need ecological integrity, but, just a second, we need a whole swath of that exempted because we might have future infrastructure demands over the area. You can forget about that portion, but for everything else you should have ecological integrity.”

Forget the fact that the provincial government has never done it. Forget the fact that this legislation would increase the protection of the environment to the highest level it has ever had in this area. Forget the fact that the people who live, work, and play in this area, and have done so for decades, do not agree with what the provincial government is doing. They agree with the approach we are taking, and actually appeared before committee to support this government, to support the Parks Canada initiatives. We are supposed to throw all of that out and pay attention to groups that have no vested interest in the park unless they are getting paid. That is the reality here, and to suggest anything else is wrong.

When they talk about the amendments they brought forward, page after page of amendments, what are the vast majority of these amendments about? They are about ecological integrity. Did we vote against them? Darned right, we voted against them. To vote in favour of them would mean we would be evicting farmers. We cannot have it both ways.

To sum up, to those who suggest that they cannot support this bill, look at it this way. If the provincial government said that it is not transferring its lands, what would we be doing? We would be creating a 5,000-acre park. What are we doing there? We are taking 5,000 acres of class 1 farmland out of a proposed international airport. We are setting it aside for farmers and preserving it so that they can farm forever.

By voting against this, the opposition would not be voting against a greater Rouge park; they would be voting in favour of holding this land for an international airport. They can separate the two issues. If they support farmers and they support the environment, then they will support this bill, at the very least because it would take 5,000 acres of federal land out of a potential international airport and preserve and protect it forever.

At the very least they can support that, and we could all work on the framework and final management plan that would support all of the goals of farmers and environmentalists.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is truly a pleasure to rise on debate on this bill.

A number of people have been working to create the Rouge national park for many years. By and large, these people truly have the best interest of the land and national heritage first and foremost.

For many years, the people in this area have wanted governments in the past to try to strike a balance between protecting the natural heritage of the area and also protecting the farmers.

I have said this before, but I will recap a bit.

Many of the lands in the northern part of what would become the Rouge national urban park are class 1 farmlands. These lands were expropriated from farmers in the early 1970s by the Trudeau Liberal government for the creation of an international airport in Pickering. Thousands of acres of class 1 farmland were stripped away from farmers. In some instances, farmers were evicted from their farms. In other cases, they were given one-year leases. This has been the reality for these farmers since the early 1970s. They have been working off one-year leases on class 1 farmland.

To fast forward a number of years, the Bob Rae NDP government in Ontario started to try to bring together a process by which we could look at the Rouge Park differently. For the most part, the concentration was on the lands to the south of Steeles Avenue in Toronto.

What we saw through that process and the lands south of Steeles Avenue was that the farmers in that area were systematically, slowly but surely, eliminated. The class 1 farmland in that area is virtually non-existent today.

We have heard speaker after speaker from the opposition get up today and talk about how they believe we can bring forward a process that would not only protect farmers, but would also protect and provide ecological integrity for the Rouge Park going forward.

I know opposition members, particularly from the NDP today, have referenced the fact that they visited the Rouge Valley. They have had some meetings with, by and large, the environmental groups that are opposed to this legislation. They also reference comments made by a farmer at committee, and we have heard it twice in debate today. Her name is Kim Empringham from the York Region Federation of Agriculture.

Bear in mind that the federation represents 700 farm businesses in this area, which is responsible for thousands of dollars of economic activity and hundreds of jobs in the community. Farmers have been there for over 200 years, and the history of farming in this area goes back over 400 years.

What did Kim Empringham from the York Region Federation of Agriculture actually say? She said that the York Region Federation of Agriculture supported what Parks Canada had done. It supported the consultation process that Parks Canada had done and the legislation, which we are debating today, as is.

When asked by the member for Halifax about the legislation, Ms. Empringham said:

We're worried that we will gradually over time lose the land we have. When equal priority isn't given, it's hard for farmers and for agriculture to hold its ground and to maintain that level field.

Moreover, we heard from Mike Whittamore, who is a very successful farmer on the provincial lands in the northern part of the Rouge Park.

To be clear, there are two sets of lands. There are the federal lands on the northern part, which were seized for an international airport by the Liberals in the 1970s, and there are thousands of acres of provincial lands, which, by and large, were accumulated through either the Bob Rae NDP government or the Mike Harris Conservative government and put under the protection of the Toronto and Region Conservation Authority. Some of those lands were also provided by the city of Markham and put under the protection of what was then called the Rouge Park Alliance.

Mike Whittamore is a farmer on provincial lands. He is a very successful farmer. He is one of the farmers, in the 1970s, whose family had been there for 200 years. His farm was expropriated from him, and he has been living off a one year lease ever since. What did Mr. Whittamore, a farmer, say? He said that what he was afraid of is that this would become the death of 1,000 cuts. He said the first step would be re-forestation, after that it would be pesticides and fertilizers, and we would go on and on.

What rationale does Mr. Whittamore have for that? I talked about it before in the House. What evidence does he have of that? In 2007, it was the same provincial government and Minister Brad Duguid, who is now suggesting that provincial lands should not be transferred, that went another step further in this area. They took hundreds of acres of class 1 farmland out of production and evicted the farmers from their lands and homes.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, November 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will take the member at her word. She talks about the environmentalists. Let us look at what they said.

When asked about farming, Caroline Schultz of Ontario Nature said that yes it wanted farming in the park, but “There are certain types of farming that would not be compatible.” If someone is a farmer, then it is adios.

Jim Robb spoke about the 600-metre ecological corridor and said that it would take 1700 acres of class 1 farmland out of production.

Parks Canada estimates that 2,000 acres of class 1 farmland will be out of production.

The member spoke against ecological integrity in the park because she recognized it could not happen in this park.

However, they cannot have it both ways. The members cannot say that they support farmers in the park, but then turn around and tell them what to farm, where to farm and how to farm in the park.

These people have suffered for 40 years, when their land was first expropriated by the Trudeau Liberal government. They deserve certainty. They deserve to be allowed to farm what they want, how they want, using best farm practices on the lands that were expropriated from many of them. That is the reality in this area.

Does my colleague not recognize the fact that the people she mentioned, who support the amendments brought forward by the NDP, do not actually live or work in the park?

Kim Empringham, a farmer, supports our legislation. If people are ratepayers, they support our legislation. They actually sent letters to us in support of the legislation. If they live, work or play in the Rouge, they support it. If it is an outside agency, which has no business telling the people in this area what to do and how to do it, it wants these amendments, which have only one purpose, and that is to kill farming. They cannot have it both ways.

Would the member just be honest and admit to the fact that the vast majority of the amendments brought forward, which spoke of ecological integrity, would do one thing, and that is eliminate farming from the Rouge?

[Ethics, November 21st, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, unlike the NDP, this minister did the right thing. The minister herself actually referred this matter to the commissioner. The commissioner investigated and found that the minister did not in fact contravene the act, unlike the NDP, which has been found guilty of using House of Commons resources for partisan purposes to fund partisan political offices in parts of the country where it has no members of Parliament. It has been found guilty of using some $300,000 worth of union money for partisan political purposes, in contravention of the Accountability Act.

We will certainly take no lessons from New Democrats on—