Paul Calandra

[Canadian Armed Forces, October 27th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, last week's events affected all Canadians. We are all mourning the loss of Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent and Corporal Nathan Cirillo, who were both brutally murdered in cold blood.

Make no mistake, we will not be intimidated or deterred by any act of terrorism against our armed forces. Last week, General Tom Lawson, Chief of the Defence Staff, gave the orders for members of the Canadian Armed Forces to continue to stand to at their posts as part of the national sentry program. The national sentry program reinforces Canada's commitment to remember and honour those who have served, including in both World Wars, the Korean War, and most recently Afghanistan. Corporal Nathan Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent will not be forgotten.

I also commend all Canadians who honoured the memory of both fallen soldiers along the Highway of Heroes on Friday. Canadians of all stripes gathered at the overpasses in solidarity and to demonstrate to the families of our fallen that they do not mourn alone.

I want to thank all of our brave men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces, especially those serving as sentries at war monuments across this great land, for standing on guard for Canada.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

I know that the debate is coming to a close, Mr. Speaker.

The member for Trinity—Spadina and the Liberal Party have been talking about ecological integrity. Their position is that if the Toronto Zoo were added to the park, it would increase the ecological integrity of the park. By allowing people to come to the park and look at the giraffes and polar bears within the park, we would be increasing the ecological integrity of the park.

I want to thank the hon. member across the way for supporting the bill to get it to committee. I appreciate that, but I have a comment.

The farmers in this area have been treated terribly. Their lands were originally expropriated by the Liberal government in the 1970s. Many of them were evicted from their lands. Some were given one-year leases that they have been operating on for over 40 years. This park would give them the opportunity to have some stability for the first time in over 40 years. In the past, they were evicted from their lands for the creation of the Bob Hunter Memorial Park. They were evicted from their homes. Those class one farmlands were reforested.

When the bill gets to committee, I would ask the member to really listen to the farmers and look at the reports. The creation of a 600-metre ecological corridor, which will take 1,700 acres of class one farmland out of production, based on a 20-year-old report, cannot be done without evicting farmers.

While I thank the member for her support, I hope that when the bill does get to committee, she will really take a look at how the farmers have been treated in this area, listen to what they are saying, and look at what would happen to them if we created this zone in that area.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Citing a 1994 report.

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I will have to ask the question again. I have asked it so many times it is actually frustrating.

The member cites the Rouge Park plan. First, the bill we brought forward actually goes further than the former Rouge Park Alliance's plans for the park. The protection the bill offers goes further than the 2001 protocol that was put in place by the Rouge Park Alliance.

The plan members opposite are citing is the 1994 Rouge Park plan that calls for a 600-metre corridor, a 1994 plan, a plan that is 20 years old. That is not the basis by which the Rouge Park was moving forward.

The 1994 plan would see 1,700-acres of class one farmland removed from production. The Liberals have said they support that. Some New Democrats have said they support that as well. The Liberals have said they want to see farming in the area progress to small-scale farming.

Again I ask, how do we create a 1,700 acre ecological corridor, remove 1,700 acres of class one farmland from this area, and not evict the farmer? It is impossible to do. How do we do that without evicting farmers? Why is the member citing a report that not even the Rouge Park Alliance accepts as the plan with which they would move forward?

[Rouge National Urban Park Act, October 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member might have his timelines a bit mixed up. In fact, this government was prepared to announce the signed memorandum of agreement that we had with the Liberal Ontario government back in May, but a provincial election was called. The election terminated the announcement, because we cannot make those types of announcements during provincial elections.

The member is asking us to live up to the signed agreement; we are quite prepared to do that. We will do that tomorrow. We are prepared to live up to the signed agreement that we have with the Province of Ontario. If the member would like to call the provincial minister here, or we could go there, we will actually sign that agreement that we have in place. We have had it in place since May.

The member talked about the provincial government and its desire for ecological integrity. In 2012, it was not ecological integrity it wanted; it was a $120 million cheque that it wanted for the land. Forget ecological integrity; give them $120 million, and we could have the land, no problem. That was what was said then by the Province of Ontario.

What this comes down to now and what the Liberals have to account for is this.The Friends of the Rouge Watershed, as he mentioned, want a 600-metre ecological corridor. The result would be that 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland through the northern part of this riding would have to be taken out of production. Is it the Liberal Party's position that it supports the removal of 1,700 acres of class 1 farmland from production and the eviction of farmers from that area?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the member for Markham—Unionville was the minister of national defence when Canada deployed a significant force to Afghanistan without any debate in this country. He sent a significant force of Canadians to a war zone with inappropriate equipment, with old outdated jeeps, and with the wrong colour of uniforms. It was described by military leaders at the time as a decade of darkness.

Having said that, I wonder if the member could identify for us what the differences are between this mission against ISIL in Iraq and the mission we undertook in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban. What would have led the Liberals to send our military forces to fight the Taliban, when today they are not willing to send our forces to fight ISIL? I wonder if the member could highlight what the differences are and why the Liberals have now flip-flopped. I am not sure. We have a couple of hours until the vote, so they might change their minds before then.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

So never, never.

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, that was a rather sad and unfortunate speech, given the high quality of debate that we have heard over the last couple of days.

I have been in the chamber and I have heard a number of members, including myself, highlight the fact that we have a difference of agreement here. With respect to this particular mission, the NDP has been clear from the outset that it was not going to support the motion that was brought forward. A number of members on this side have enunciated that.

We also heard the Minister of International Development talk about the importance of Canada providing, and continuing to provide, humanitarian assistance. We have talked about the fact that Canada is among one of the highest contributors in the world. We have been doing this for many months.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona talked about some of the important initiatives that Canada has taken in the past with other allies.

Not specific to this motion, because we understand the NDP is not going to support the motion, but in the future, under what conditions would the NDP ever support a Canadian combat mission in times of world strife? Under what conditions would the NDP support Canadian Forces moving abroad to protect communities or countries that need our help?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked specifically about aid. As he knows, the Minister of International Development has highlighted that Canada is the seventh-largest contributor to international aid efforts, and it is something that we have been doing for quite some time in the region. It is also one of the principal things that we also accomplished in Afghanistan.

The minister talked about all the things we have been providing in terms of aid. I wonder if the member would identify what additional items he would suggest, over and above what we are already providing?

He also talked a lot about the costs. Could he provide us with a cost estimate for the additional aid that he is suggesting Canada provide?

[Military Contribution Against ISIL, October 7th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has been clear on where it stands with respect to this motion. That party has been clear on where it stands with respect to this mission as well as with previous military deployments. My question is not specific to this mission, because as I said, the NDP has been clear that it is not prepared to support this one.

In future, what circumstances would guide an NDP decision to support a Canadian combat mission abroad? What initiatives would those members have to see put in place to support a Canadian military combat role in the future, not this specific mission? If one of those elements is supporting the United Nations, could she comment on the problem we always seem to have with the United Nations with respect to a veto by one of the permanent members of the United Nations?