Debates of Dec. 9th, 2014

Foreign Affairs

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although Canada claims to be a country that welcomes foreign students, the bank accounts of Iranian students who have done nothing wrong are being abruptly closed simply because they are from Iran. Economic sanctions against Iran were put in place to exert pressure on the Iranian government.

What is this government doing to ensure that Iranian students are not unfairly affected by these sanctions?

[John Baird, Conservative, Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, obviously, we are prepared to work to support young people all over the world, but this government makes no apologies for the tough sanctions regime it has put in place. However, we have real concerns about the human rights record of this regime. It has deteriorated.

Canadians can be very proud of the leadership of this Prime Minister, this government, and the important work that we do to press the case for human rights in this country.

Taxation

[Wladyslaw Lizon, Conservative, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Liberals' new mandatory payroll tax could force a two-worker family to pay up to $3,200 more each year.

A recent study says small business owners believe that the Liberal payroll tax hike could be the greatest challenge they have ever faced. My constituents are alarmed and want the federal government to keep taxes low.

Can the Minister of State for Finance please update the House on Canada's low tax plan?

[Kevin Sorenson, Conservative, Minister of State (Finance)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is absolutely correct. We know that Canadians do not want to pay more money in payroll taxes, or in any other taxes. That is why we have lowered taxes in every way that we collect them.

We have also moved forward on new measures that would help Canadians save for retirement. We have brought forward measures like the tax-free savings account. We have introduced pension income splitting for seniors. We have brought forward the pooled registered pension plan and consulted over the target benefit pension plan.

Despite the opposition's reckless high tax plans, we continue to take action to put money into the pockets of—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Vancouver East.

Health

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to advertising, pharmaceutical companies appear to have free rein. Apparently, the minister believes that these companies should just regulate themselves.

A newly released study shows that Health Canada is failing on its regulatory responsibilities for advertising, and when Canadians complain about public safety risks, a private chat with a company is all that is required, according to the government.

Why does the minister refuse to enforce her own department's regulations?

[Rona Ambrose, Conservative, Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, what was missed in the article the member is referring to and quoting from is that the law is now clear. Under the new law, which is Vanessa's law, tough new fines and jail time for companies that violate drug laws, including advertising, can be imposed.

Our laws for prescription drug advertising are far stronger than those in the U.S. and comparable to those in the EU, and the law is clear: advertising prescription drugs to consumers is prohibited.

Any complaints will be reviewed, and we will act.

Status of Women

[André Bellavance, Independent, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, just because the government snubbed the ceremonies commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Polytechnique massacre does not mean that Quebeckers have forgotten this despicable, misogynistic crime.

The Premier of Quebec committed to creating a new firearms registry. The bill is nearly ready and staff are in place. All that is missing is the data that the federal government stubbornly wants to destroy.

Why does the government not do the honourable thing, put an end to the costly legal proceedings and give Quebec what belongs to the province: the data its people have already paid for?

[Kellie Leitch, Conservative, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women]

Mr. Speaker, we remember that these crimes that took place at the Polytechnique 25 years ago were atrocious crimes. These women were put in harm's way. These women were murdered simply because they were women. We will continue to support victims of these crimes and punish the criminals that perpetuate them.

Our government has been standing up for victims, so whether it is the creation of a DNA missing persons index or the victims bill of rights, we here are focused on making sure that victims of crime are supported and that we put criminals behind bars—unlike the opposition, which continues to vote against all of these issues.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of Jacques Chagnon, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

Message From the Senate

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill:

Bill C-8, An Act to amend the Copyright Act and the Trade-marks Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received, which is as follows:

December 9th, 2014

Mr. Speaker,

I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 9th day of December, 2014, at 4:00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills of law.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Wallace

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-43, A Second Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 11, 2014 and other measures, be read the third time and passed, and of the amendment.

Economic Action Plan 2014 Act, No. 2

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and speak to this important legislation, Bill C-43, which includes provisions that would support jobs, economic growth, families, and communities.

In addition to the measures making the tax system simpler and fairer for farming and fishing businesses, extending the existing tax credits, doubling the children's fitness tax credit, and much more, we are also bringing in changes to support our transportation system.

I would like turn the attention of the House to the amendments to the Canada Marine Act. Canadian port authorities operate Canada's 18 major ports. Canadian port authorities are considered key economic drivers and are vital to Canada's domestic and international trade objectives. Our government is committed to creating the right conditions to ensure that we have competitive ports to support our aggressive trade agenda. The proposed amendments to the Canada Marine Act are part of the plan to enable strong Canadian ports.

The proposed amendments would allow Canadian port authorities the ability to acquire surplus federal real property. This supports the federal government's ongoing divestiture of regional ports. To date, Transport Canada has divested or otherwise transferred 499 regional and remote ports that it owned, while 50 ports remain under federal ownership. Some Canadian port authorities have expressed an interest in acquiring Transport Canada-owned ports to expand their business opportunities. Canadian port authorities are well positioned to attract investments, increase traffic, and, importantly, create jobs.

The participation of Canadian port authorities is considered a key part of the ongoing divestiture strategy. However, provisions under the current Canada Marine Act do not allow Canadian port authorities the ability to acquire federal real property, thereby preventing these port authorities from participating in the divestiture program. The proposed amendments would enable Canadian port authorities to participate in the divestiture program after other interested stakeholders, such as municipalities, have been given the opportunity to acquire these surplus ports first.

There are also increased resource development projects on federal port lands stemming from Canada's potential to be a major player in the global energy economy. Our government is proposing amendments to ensure projects are undertaken in a safe manner while protecting the environment and Canadians. These amendments would provide the government with an option to develop regulations applying to any specific large-scale commercial or industrial projects on federal port lands. These proposed amendments would also permit these regulations to incorporate by reference any laws or documents to effectively regulate any potential projects on federal port lands.

As I noted at the start, many of our transportation initiatives relate to our country's trade agenda and help connect us to a global supply chain. This means we must ensure that our transportation system, including ports, has a robust legislative regime to support our trade agenda. The amendments to the Canada Marine Act would support economic growth and enable international trade.

Let me move on to another important measure in Bill C-43. We are making amendments to the Aeronautics Act that would provide the Minister of Transport with the authority and the necessary tools to effectively respond to an increasing number of aerodrome issues pertaining to development, location, land use, and consultation.

Canada's aviation system consists of 300 certified aerodromes, or airports, and approximately 7,000 aerodromes, which are defined as an area of land, water, or other supporting surface used for the arrival, departure, movement, or servicing of aircraft.

Over the last several years, Transport Canada has increasingly heard from provinces, municipalities, and Canadians concerning a number of complex issues related to the construction of new aerodromes and the operation of existing aerodromes, some of which were subsequently brought before the courts. As the situation now stands, current regulations do not require proponents to take part in consultation processes with local land use authorities and affected stakeholders or to notify Transport Canada or Nav Canada prior to developing an aerodrome. Transport Canada also does not have a formal engagement process in place whereby stakeholders or those involved may raise concerns regarding aerodrome development to that department.

In the absence of these tools, the department has been left in a reactive position and has been dealing with issues on an ad hoc basis, which has proven to be inefficient and resource-intensive and has not effectively responded to the concerns of constituents. It has also led to unnecessary and significant costs for aerodrome proponents.

In order to suitably carry out the department's aviation mandate, the minister requires the legal authority to promote aerodrome development when it enhances Canada's transportation system and supports economic prosperity, and also the authority to prohibit the development if it is not in the best interest of Canadians.

As such, the amendments would provide the minister with the authority to make an order to prohibit an aerodrome proponent from developing or expanding or making changes to the nature of operations if there was a risk to aviation safety or if it is not in the public interest. For example, this could include cases in which the operations of a new or existing aerodrome would result in greater air traffic congestion, which could introduce a risk to aviation safety.

This new authority would permit intervention by the minister to prohibit development at an early point, rather than after construction or during operations, in order to allow for the early identification and mitigation of safety issues.

The proposed amendment would also provide for regulation-making authority respecting the consultations to be carried out by the proponent of an aerodrome before development or the operator of an aerodrome before an expansion or change to its operations.

This initiative would provide the minister with flexibility to effectively respond to either existing or possibly unforeseen issues or trends and is an important first step in modernizing the department's aerodrome framework.

This amendment would also protect aerodrome proponents and operators from unnecessary costs associated with development and would provide an opportunity for affected Canadians to be engaged in the process.

We will continue to promote the freedom to fly safely in a rapidly growing sector while providing greater regulatory predictability and transparency for Canadians. We will also continue to address aviation safety and public interest concerns while encouraging the responsible development and operation of aerodromes in Canada.

Economic action plan 2014 no. 2 would create the right conditions for an efficient, competitive, and sustainable transportation system to move Canadian products. Such a system is vital to a strong economy.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech. He talks about airports, yet Bill C-43 would centralize more ministerial power over the expansion and modification of airports, raising the risk that local consultation would not occur in the face of controversial proposals such as the Toronto Island airport expansion. We see a bill that would remove the opportunity for people to have proper input when it comes to airport modification. Over and over again, we see a government that continues to limit debates on bills as important as this one, bills that would create such a great amount of change.

Could my colleague talk specifically about the fact that the bill would actually raise the risk that consultation would not occur on this specific piece?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, no; in fact, it would be quite the opposite. The changes proposed in this particular bill would create a regulation-making authority whereby we would now have a regulated process specifying how consultations would occur before a proponent seeking to build an aerodrome could build an aerodrome. We would actually formalize that process.

It would be the same thing for operators of an existing aerodrome who seek to expand it. That process would now be defined in regulations. There would be responsibilities upon stakeholders, and it would be fully incumbent upon them to carry them out.

That would be a step forward. It would guarantee that consultations, which in a large number of cases currently do not occur, would in fact occur through a formal process. That would be a step forward, and the member should support it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important that we recognize the important role our airports play in all of our communities, both economically and socially. There are a great number of them where we have community involvement and where, ultimately, the communities try to provide good stewardship, ensuring that their own local airport is going in the right direction from the community's perspective. Again, I highlight both the economic and social importance of this.

The question I have for the member is this. To what degree did the government actually go out, prior to delivering this particular speech, and consult with the different stakeholders in regard to the need for the regulation and ultimate development of a process?

[Jeff Watson, Conservative, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member says he supports the airline industry, and yet his leader campaigned aggressively in the province of Ontario in favour of a carbon tax on jet fuel. That is hardly the kind of support that members on this side believe in. In fact, through the Canadian Transportation Agency review, we are looking at ways that we can make the industry much more competitive on an economic basis.

However, today we are talking about the BIA no. 2 changes to the Aeronautics Act specifically, which would formalize a process for consultations, so we do not have any kind of a wild-west scenario with aerodromes cropping up all over the place. Instead, the public would know very clearly, when the regulations are complete, that they would have opportunities to be fully consulted to either expand or modify operations at an existing aerodrome or, before a new aerodrome is built, they would have the opportunity to weigh in. We think that is a major improvement. The member should support that.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to inform you that I will share my time with the member for Surrey North.

I rise today to speak to the Conservative government's budget implementation bill because it does not meet our expectations, nor does it meet the expectations of my constituents in Hochelaga.

This budget implementation bill is the second one this government has introduced since last February's budget. The Conservatives could have taken this opportunity to fix some of the flaws in the budget and to address the consequences the budget has for Canadian families. However, as usual, the government introduced another omnibus bill that has 400 clauses and is more than 460 pages long. It amends dozens of laws on subjects that were never mentioned in the 2014-15 budget speech.

The NDP does actually support some of the measures in this bill, which we have been asking for for quite some time, such as an end to pay-to-pay fees in the telecom and broadcasting industry and the creation of a DNA data bank to help in missing persons cases, which we have been calling for since 2007. We also support the measures to fix the mess the Conservatives created themselves when they introduced the Social Security Tribuna. That tribunal has been sloppily run and has delayed the review of several important cases for Canadian citizens.

It is too bad that this is such a mammoth bill, because I could have voted in favour of those measures that I do support. However, I have no choice but to vote against Bill C-43 as it stands, because it fails to correct several omissions and it attacks some of the most vulnerable people in our society or does nothing to help them.

Of course, as we all know, every Conservative minister likes to add a cookie-cutter phrase to their talking points at the end of all the so-called answers they give in question period, to remind us that we voted against the proposed measures.

Before anyone asks, I would like to give some of the reasons why I will be voting against this omnibus bill. First of all, the new Minister of Finance had an opportunity to correct the approach taken by his predecessor, who felt that the expiry of certain social housing agreements was an opportunity to save money and who planned to use that opportunity to balance his budget by creating a huge social and economic deficit for people who need government help.

When we show the government examples of how the expiry of these agreements affects certain individuals and families, they do not really seem to understand what we are talking about and just say that at the end of the agreement, the mortgage is paid off and the government's contribution is no longer necessary. Once again, I am forced to explain to the minister how these things work in the hope that in his next budget, he might consider those families that have a hard time making it to the end of the month, not just the small percentage of wealthy people who do not necessarily need any help from the government.

Long-term social housing agreements are two-pronged. Of course, they enable social housing projects to pay the mortgage, but they also enable low-income families to receive subsidies in the form of rent supplements. That means that they will not have to spend more than 30% of their income on housing. It also means that they will have at least a little bit of money for the family's other essential needs, such as food.

What happens when these agreements come to an end? Two things. Since they were long-term agreements—over a period of 25, 30 or 50 years—some of the housing projects have deteriorated over the years and need renovations. My colleagues opposite own a residence, I am sure. They should be able to understand that. On the other hand, and this is probably the most pernicious effect of the expiry of these long-term agreements, eliminating the subsidies means that some families will have to pay as much as $500 more a month for housing, sometimes even more.

Not understanding that $500 a month for a single mother is a lot of money is like saying that the nutrition north program is effective because it reduces the cost of groceries by $110 a month, even though it can cost as much as $1,200 a week to feed a family in Canada's north. I have seen and heard it myself: a bag of apples can cost $9 and a pumpkin can cost $75.

Anyone saying that would have to be joking.

However, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development does not really make me laugh, and neither does the Minister of Finance or the Minister of State for Social Development.

Before anyone suggests that we are the only ones calling on the federal government to play a role in making housing more affordable in Canada, let us look some of the pre-budget requests that some major stakeholders have made.

The Canadian Housing & Renewal Association is asking that the government reinvest in social housing the money that was freed up when the long-term agreements expired. It is also asking the government to provide incentives for increasing the supply of rental housing in Canada.

The Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada is asking that the government continue to provide financial assistance to low-income households living in co-operative housing when their agreement expires. It also wants the government to set targets for the construction of new affordable housing.

The Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain are also calling for the moneys reserved for long-term agreements to be renewed in order to address the housing crisis in a number of communities across the country.

The Canadian Home Builders' Association is calling for the creation of tax incentives to encourage the construction of rental housing and promote innovation in housing. By the way, innovation in this sector would be most welcome in the north.

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the decision to stop investing in the construction of new social housing—a decision made by the Liberal government in power at the time—and the federal government's disengagement from anything to do with housing.

Since then, no new social housing has been built in Canada with the financial assistance of the federal government, except for when my former leader, Jack Layton, managed to get an agreement from Paul Martin's Liberals. It is time for that to change.

Let us now talk about the fight against homelessness. The minister could also have fixed his predecessor's mistakes. First of all, and at the very least, he could have restored the budget of the homelessness partnering strategy. The 2013-14 budget was cut from $134.8 million to $119 million, a $15.8 million reduction.

As well, he could have announced the indexing of funding for the fight against homelessness, which has never increased since it was established in the late 1990s, and covered the shortfalls of organizations that fund fewer and fewer services every year even though demand is increasing.

Furthermore, the Minister of Finance could have announced that the HPS would retain its general character and remain community-based, as a number of groups in Quebec and Montreal and the Government of Quebec have called for.

The Conservatives accuse us of not believing in the housing first program, which was proven to be effective by the At Home/Chez soi initiative. To that, I would say that if the members opposite truly wanted to make housing a priority, they would renew the $1.7 billion reserved for long-term social housing agreements and let the community groups continue their excellent work on the ground. They use a variety of approaches, in addition to providing housing.

We need new blood in government. We need measures that will help Canadian families, not just the wealthy and major corporations like the oil companies and banks, which already make huge profits and do not need government assistance to survive.

In 2015, the New Democratic Party will offer Canadians a viable alternative to this government and ways to make life more affordable for families.

In addition to fixing the mistakes that the Conservatives and the Liberals before them—they have been taking turns in office since Confederation—made when it comes to housing and combatting homelessness, the NDP will introduce a federal minimum wage of $15 an hour so that families where both parents are working do not have to go to the food bank to feed their children.

What is more, we will implement a Canada-wide program to create child care spaces that cost less than $15 a day. This type of program has proven to be effective in Quebec, where it has allowed more women to return to the labour force.

We will also change the retirement age back to 65, cancel the $36 billion in cuts to provincial health transfers, and protect the employment insurance fund by prohibiting the government from taking money from it and essentially stealing EI contributions, as successive Liberal and Conservative governments have done.

All that is just the beginning. In 2015, for the first time in history, Canadians will have a real progressive, social democratic option.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech because she spoke about affordable housing.

Today, I participated in a meeting at the Wabano Centre for Aboriginal Health. First nations are also saying that there is a shortage of housing. A June 2013 report by the Department of Indian Affairs indicated that $8.2 billion was needed to help fund the needs of first nations.

It is important to understand that the annual budget for infrastructure on reserves is only $1 billion. The $8.2 billion includes $6 billion that is lacking for adequate housing and $1.2 billion for safe drinking water.

In light of this, I would like my colleague to elaborate on the need for housing that is not only affordable but also adequate and talk about the cuts that the government has made to this department.

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be my pleasure to do so.

I went with my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou to visit his riding last September. We went to some Inuit villages and a Cree village, visiting some houses. I would like to thank the people living in those houses for allowing us to enter.

Some of the places I visited housed families of nine, 10 or 13 people. There was also an incredible amount of mould. In one bathroom in particular, walls that should have been white were actually black. There is a serious mould problem. The houses are not adapted to either the climate or aboriginal cultures.

Think about it. If you brought a deer home, where would you put it? Aboriginal houses, which are built like ours, are not adapted to their culture. There are all kinds of problems related to housing in the north. There is a shortage of adequate, safe housing.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think Conservatives ever get outside of the Ottawa bubble.

As a budget bill, one would think there would be something in there that Canadians would want to have implemented or addressed in the House. Members of my community of Surrey North certainly want to see jobs for them addressed. They certainly want to see health care addressed. They certainly want child care programs in their local communities addressed.

That is what I am hearing, but there is nothing in this budget implementation bill addressing those issues. What does the member hear from her constituents and is it included in this bill?

[Marjolaine Boutin-Sweet, NDP, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to share what I heard from people I met while going door to door. They said that we need to get rid of the current government. For various reasons, the government is not listening to the people.

The members on this side of the House go to see people. We consult them. I did a tour about housing so that I could talk to people about their living conditions and determine what their needs are. We did the same thing for work and employment insurance and many other issues, including one bill that made no sense. I do not remember the name of it. We consult people beforehand and we listen to what they have to say. That does not seem to be the case on the other side of the House.

For example, the minister decided he would change the name of the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian Museum of History. He said he had held consultations, but that was not the case. In reality, he asked people what they thought they would find in a museum if the name was changed from the Canadian Museum of Civilization to the Canadian Museum of History.

Were those really consultations? I think not.

[Jasbir Sandhu, NDP, Surrey North, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always an honour to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents from Surrey North. Today I will speak to Bill C-43, the budget implementation act.

Given the track record of the Conservatives, it is no surprise to me that they again have moved time allocation on this bill. I am lucky enough to get a chance to speak on behalf of my constituents, however, I know many members from the NDP and Liberal side, and maybe the Conservative side, will not get the opportunity to represent their constituents.

There is no possible way that a 460-page bill, which contains more than 400 clauses, could be adequately studied, analyzed and debated under this type of time restriction. Is that a surprise? Well, I am not surprised at all. Under the government, omnibus bills that amend dozens of acts at a time and pushed through the House under time allocation are unfortunately becoming the norm. It is unfortunate that the government insists on following this anti-democratic process time and time again. However, after three and a half years, I have recognized that the Conservative government is not planning on changing its ways any time soon.

There is a laundry list of things in the bill before us. It talks about temporary foreign workers, pay-to-pay fees, airports, the Canadian Polar Commission and the EI job credit. The Conservatives are also beating up on refugees in the bill.

However, I want to talk about what is important to my constituents. When I go back to Surrey, I like talking to people and finding out what their issues are, but none of those issues have been addressed in the bill.

I often say when we are on the Hill, that Ottawa is like a little bubble. We need to get outside of the Hill and hear what Canadians want. However, I get the feeling that the Conservatives are still living in that bubble, because what Canadians are saying is not being addressed in the House by the government.

I come from Surrey North, which is a dynamic, vibrant and fast-growing city in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. I am extremely proud to represent a portion of such a diverse and interesting city. However, Surrey is facing many pressures and challenges that require action and assistance from the federal government to solve.

Surrey's challenges range from a lack of affordable housing, aging infrastructure, inadequate public transit and serious issues around crime and poverty. Federal funding and support is sorely needed to make inroads to address these challenges in my city.

I continue to hear from my constituents on the problem of public transit in Surrey, and I have to agree. Surrey is the second largest city in British Columbia, soon to be the largest city in the upcoming years. It is growing at a rate of about 12,000 to 13,000 new residents annually. As one of the fastest-growing cities in Canada, and the fastest-growing city in metropolitan Vancouver, there is a clear need for infrastructure funding to support this growth. Public transportation is increasingly a problem for a such a fast-growing city. Although the population of Surrey continues to grow at an astounding rate, public transportation has not kept pace.

The SkyTrain is Surrey's most efficient public transit connection to other cities in the Lower Mainland, such as New Westminster, Burnaby and Vancouver. However, SkyTrain service in Surrey has not been expanded since 1994 when three new stations were put in—all in my riding—but nothing has been done since then.

Twenty years later, the face of Surrey has changed dramatically, and it is well past the time that the federal government commit to funding critical infrastructure, such as the expansion of public transit in Surrey. Residents in my community of Surrey North will tell members that the public transit system in Surrey is inadequate, and I hear that quite often. There are long wait times and convoluted routes to get from one point in the city to another.

The city of Surrey is currently working to secure funding for a light rail transit network that will connect different town centres in the city as well as connect Surrey to cities in our area, such as Langley. This is an important step forward for our city and a very important investment that is critical to ensuring Surrey remains a livable and connected city.

It disappoints me greatly to see that the budget does not allocate funding to important projects that are critical to continued growth and development of major cities, such as Surrey. Other cities across the country are facing similar pressures with regard to public transit. We hear from the FCM on a regular basis about the lack of funding for transit infrastructure development for the cities across this nation.

Just last week, my colleague, the member for Parkdale—High Park, pointed out the issues that Toronto had experienced with the transit system not keeping pace with the population growth. This is not an isolated issue. Investment in infrastructure is necessary to ensure that our cities continue to be some of the best and most livable in the world.

In terms of infrastructure, public transit is not the only issue facing my community of Surrey North. As I have mentioned many times in the House, the aging Pattullo Bridge is a major concern to my constituents. I have been very vocal in requesting that the federal government step in and play a role in regional infrastructure planning and development. The 76-year-old Pattullo Bridge, which was built for a 50-year lifespan, now poses a significant safety concern.

The Golden Ears Bridge and the Port Mann Bridge, which both feed either directly or indirectly into Surrey North, are the only toll bridges in western Canada and the only toll bridges coming into my riding.

Many Surrey residents continue to commute across the Fraser River to go to work. The future of the Pattullo Bridge will have a significant impact on the residents of Surrey, especially on the residents of Surrey North, as it is the last non-toll bridge that feeds directly into our city.

I have been anxiously waiting for the federal government to commit to participating in infrastructure planning and development in the south Fraser River region. However, this budget proves that this is not a priority for the government.

Municipalities receive only 8% of the tax revenue, but are responsible for 60% of the development. This equation does not add up, and it is clear that the federal government has a responsibility to allocate funding to regional development and infrastructure in a reasonable manner that creates sustainable and livable cities.

This is not being done right now. It is not being addressed in this budget at all.

Finally, I hear concerns about crime in my community very frequently. Residents are concerned about the impact that crime is having on our community and what is being done to reduce the amount of crime.

Frankly, the tough-on-crime government has done nothing to help people in Surrey North. Instead, we have seen funding for policing downloaded to municipalities. Practical and cost-effective solutions such as prevention programs are not being utilized to reduce crime. For example, research shows that community-based programs focused on gang intervention, after-school mentoring and after-school recreation are promising at preventing crime.

Programs like this are practical, cost-effective and contribute to community building, as well as to the goal of reducing crime. My motion on youth gang prevention takes a similar approach by calling on the government to provide stable, long-term funding for youth gang crime prevention and intervention programs.

However, once again, I see no funding allocated to these types of common sense prevention programs that could help reduce the amount of crime in riding of Surrey North and communities across the country.

This approach of the Conservative government is very problematic. I am not surprised in the least that the budget is out of touch with the needs of everyday Canadians. This budget is an opportunity to truly address the needs of Canadians, however, the government has again failed Canadians.

I want to take this opportunity to wish all Canadians right across our country a very merry Christmas and a happy new year, and be safe.