Debates of May 2nd, 2013

Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 1

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, the member frequently mentioned youth in his speech.

Youth and their future are at the heart of the economic action plan's 2013 budget. For example, the Canada job grant will help match our job-seeking youth with the additional training they need. Adequate training will help them find a job.

Why is he opposing the economic action plan and all of the measures it contains for internships and support for entrepreneurs? Not only would it allow our youth to gain the experience they need, it would also allow them to work for businesses and gain the skills that will help them find jobs and contribute to our country's prosperity.

Why is he opposing the economic action plan, given that it is a tool for our youth?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this budget does nothing for Canada's youth. More needs to be done. Slightly increasing resources for education is not enough. We need to create jobs for youth, for students in the summer, for example. The Conservatives cut funding for that.

I disagree with my colleague, who defends a government that does nothing for Canadian youth.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague on his speech. I was hoping we would talk about the next generation, the generation that we are losing, because this and previous governments have not taken care of them.

Once again, there are no real measures to stimulate job creation and incite young people to join the labour market. There is no extra little boost to help them start their own business or get some post-secondary training.

Could my colleague talk a little more about the measures that are missing from this budget but that could have helped young Canadians find work and contribute to Canada's future?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, more and more young Canadians want more than anything to gain some work experience. A growing number of youth are having to take unpaid internships or pursue their studies. It makes no sense in a country like Canada.

We need to invest money to encourage the success of Canada's youth. However, that is not a priority to the Conservatives. The Conservatives are completely out of touch with the reality facing young people and their families.

All parties of the House of Commons should work together to examine and present solutions for our youth. However, that is not possible with the Conservatives, since this is not a priority to them.

[Bruce Hyer, Independent, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we all know that raising payroll taxes is one of the most effective ways to kill jobs. The EI program was projected to be in a surplus even before the Conservatives decided to hike the EI premiums on employers in this budget. Raising premiums might make some sense if there were a real need, but clearly there is not. The unemployment rate is 1.4 million Canadians out of work, with six job seekers for every job.

My question to the hon. member for Kings—Hants is this: would he like to comment on why the Conservatives are raising payroll taxes at a time like this?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it is the Conservatives who have called payroll taxes a “job-killing tax”. In fact, the Minister of Finance is on the record saying that, yet he has increased payroll taxes by at least $600 million per year.

This makes no sense at a time when unemployment rates remain stubbornly high. Unemployment rates are still over a point higher than they were five years ago. Employment rates for young Canadians are five points worse than they were five years ago. It makes no sense to increase payroll taxes during a downturn.

In fact, it was the Conservatives who brought in measures on the governance of the EI system to force the system to balance itself over a shorter time horizon, which created the perverse effect of higher payroll taxes during times of downturn. They have since ignored their own mechanism to do that, but it is bad public policy in any case. It has created a lot of uncertainty and it is killing the capacity for small business people to create jobs in Canada.

[Joyce Murray, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Kings—Hants for his very clear presentation on the downsides of budget 2013.

My question is about the increase in taxes on dividends for small and medium-sized businesses.

We know that sometimes dividends are a way that small business people can withdraw funds from their company. Often they use it to reinvest in the company. Small and medium-sized businesses often do not have access to public capital; they are not listed on a stock exchange; so that is necessary for their growth, their ability to hire and their ability to invest in innovations.

What explanation does the member have for why it would make sense to put billions of dollars in extra taxes on dividends for small and medium-sized businesses over the coming five years?

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague for Vancouver Quadra knows of which speaks, because she is one of the most successful entrepreneurs in this House. She and her husband and family have built a global business in reforestation. It is one of the great examples of green businesses that can employ Canadians and create the green jobs of tomorrow.

The member is absolutely right that the Conservatives' increase of $2.3 billion in taxes on small businesses is going to cost jobs. We cannot take $2.3 billion out of the economy without it affecting jobs in Canada. However, it is part of the Conservatives' continued tax hikes on the job creators of Canada, which are the small businesses that we need to be encouraging to grow and prosper and employ more Canadians. Instead, the Conservatives are taxing the heck out of them.

[Paul Calandra, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I found it odd that the member was talking about the last seven years of the Liberal government, because he spent much of that last seven years telling Canadians how bad a government it was. It was not until he was offered a cabinet position that he had a big conversion and thought maybe it was a better government than he remembered.

My question is this: is it now the position of the Liberal Party that our foreign aid dollars should be redirected from helping vulnerable people around the world to actually helping those economies that compete with our Canadian manufacturers to put our Canadian manufacturers at a disadvantage?

Specifically, there is a manufacturer in my riding that competes directly with a Chinese business and has applauded the changes to foreign aid that we have made, which will allow him to compete, succeed and hire more people.

Is it now the Liberals' position that our foreign aid should be directed to—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Kings—Hants has 30 seconds to respond.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, in December 2003, I joined the Liberals. I was elected as a Liberal for the first time in 2004, after which I was invited to join the cabinet.

The reason I joined the Liberals when the Progressive Conservatives merged with the Canadian Alliance was that, as the Progressive Conservative Party's first openly gay member of Parliament, I did not believe there was a place for me with the social conservatives in the Canadian Alliance. I can say that the fact that they still do not have an openly gay member of their caucus or cabinet validates my decision. I am very proud to have followed my—

[The Deputy Speaker]

Resuming debate, the hon. Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon and share my time with an outstanding person, namely the member for Ottawa—Orléans. He represents a community in the suburbs of the greater Ottawa area, which includes a large French-speaking community, and he serves it very well.

He also serves veterans very well. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Legion. I can always count on him. He always attends events organized for veterans. I want to thank him and tell him that I am extremely proud to be with him in a Conservative caucus that is working every day to improve the quality of life for the entire Canadian population.

I want to say in no uncertain terms that I will be supporting our government’s 2013 economic action plan without reservation, for three very simple reasons.

First, this budget is tailor-made for Canadian families. It is consistent with our policies. For example, we have the lowest taxation rate for families. What we want is for the money to stay in the pockets of our families, so they can use it for their many needs.

We want to be an efficient government that is at their service. That is why we have reduced taxes more than 150 times since 2006. As a result, an average family with four children has $3,200 more in its pockets because it is paying less in taxes. Young families, among others, are also receiving grants to raise their children up to age six. People are also paying less in GST. We are naturally staying the course on the economy, and a return to a balanced budget.

Second, every person elected represents municipalities or cities. I have the privilege of representing a large portion of the city of Lévis, with my colleague the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière. Now, the city of Lévis has significant infrastructure needs in order to support families and economic growth, and to be able to provide a quality of life in a changing environment. The city of Lévis has infrastructure projects, but so does the municipality of Bellechasse and the Des Etchemins regional county municipality. I am also thinking of Beaumont, which is growing very quickly, and Saint-Louis-de-Gonzague. These municipalities have infrastructure projects.

I support the economic action plan because the huge sums involved will enable municipalities to invest in infrastructure not only this year, but in the years to come. More than $50 billion in infrastructure spending is planned. For example, we are making the transfer of the excise tax on gasoline permanent. That will enable our municipalities to invest. We will be partnering with the provincial governments to enable them to generate leverage with the investments they make in infrastructure. This will consolidate the economic prosperity of our country.

Third, I support this budget because it is designed to serve people who have put their lives at risk for our country. They have served under Canada’s flag. Whether they are still in the ranks of the Canadian Armed Forces or have left, they are our veterans and their families.

I would like to take a few moments to show how much this budget respects the government’s responsibility towards its veterans and their families.

In the economic action plan, we have, so to speak, an investment that will represent huge sums in the years ahead for veterans and their families. Among other things, there is one specific measure in the budget: the war veterans’ allowance. For this measure to come into force, however, the economic action plan must be supported. I will talk a little more about it.

What struck me first in the budget with respect to benefits for veterans and their families is the need for support when a veteran dies. The funeral and burial program has been substantially improved with respect to funerals for eligible veterans. We are receiving constructive comments from the veteran community on this matter.

We are also improving our contribution to the important date coming up in 2017, namely the 150th anniversary of our country. That will also be the 100th anniversary of a landmark event in our history: the Battle of Vimy Ridge, where Canadians fought together for the first time. We were victorious, but we suffered substantial losses. That is why it is important that we, as a nation, make sure that people do not forget their sacrifice. That is also why we will be investing $5 million in an interpretation centre at the Canadian National Vimy Memorial.

The measures contained in the economic action plan 2013 take our unprecedented support for Canada's veterans and their families to the next level and demonstrate our continued commitment to veterans. We can see this commitment clearly in our government's response to a Federal Court ruling last spring.

The judge who made the decision did not specify its scope. However, he did indicate that there is no connection with the programs provided by National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada. That said, under the leadership of our Prime Minister and with the support of the Conservative caucus, our government has decided to go beyond this decision, which involved only National Defence, so that the harmonization of our programs also covers those delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada.

This is an envelope of nearly $1.9 billion. Our government therefore decided immediately to go beyond the court’s decision and to stop deducting the disability pension from Veterans Affairs Canada in calculating the monthly payments as an allowance for lost revenue from the department and as an income support allowance from the Canadian Forces. We were able to do it immediately because that was what we wanted to do.

We wanted to accomplish a third item: the war veterans allowance. To do this, we need regulatory changes. That is why we need support from all parliamentarians for the approval of this measure, which is included in the 2013 economic action plan. Some 2,500 modern-era veterans and survivors should benefit from these changes in the first year alone. We also intend to adjust this veterans allowance in the same way.

Economic action plan 2013 calculates that the total impact of these measures, when we combine National Defence and Veterans Affairs Canada together, would be $1.9 billion over seven years. That is an extra $1.9 billion in the pockets of disabled veterans and men and women in uniform. We think this is the right thing to do and we seek support from the House to do so. This includes an additional $95.4 million to veterans above what was announced previously when calculating the earning loss benefit and the Canadian Forces income support benefit.

I want to reiterate how important it is as a government to support the budget for three reasons.

The first is the major increase in the funeral and burial program for those who need it.

The second is the support for the commemorations that would occur at the Vimy memorial centre, which is important. We actually have the Vimy memorial on our new $20 bill. It is our duty to remember.

The third is the harmonization of all of our programs, especially the veterans war allowance.

That is why I invite members to support the budget not only for all Canadian families, but especially for what it does for our veterans and their families.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's comments. He is urging the opposition to support the bill, yet the Conservatives have once again packed many complex and important issues in the bill to debate before the House. If the member thinks these measures are so important, why has the government crammed them all into this document, not allowing members of Parliament to do the job that Canadians elected us to do, which is to properly scrutinize these measures and come up with the best and most appropriate measures for Canadians?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is really simple. It is three points that gather to the same reality: economic prosperity and taking care of our families and our veterans. This budget is all about that.

Clearly, this is simple: first, do we support investment in our country’s infrastructure? I think we do. We need it. That is obvious.

Second, do we want to stimulate economic prosperity and job creation by ensuring that our young people have the training they need to secure the jobs that will enable them to respond to the labour shortages we are facing? Yes.

Third, does it make sense to do what is appropriate for veterans, and harmonize all our programs? As a nation, should we not offer a decent funeral and burial to a veteran who has died from service-related injuries? It is the least we can do.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, it will come as no surprise that, as the Veterans Affairs critic for the Liberal Party, I do not share the minister's view with respect to the impact of this budget on veterans.

With respect to the Last Post Fund, first, the budget trumpets a $65 million increase over the next two years. The minister knows, and I would like him to admit it, that this $65 million would not be spent over the next two years, in spite of the announcement in the budget.

Second, that increase to the Last Post Fund would not help one more veteran. The veterans who qualify would get more money, but not one more veteran would qualify, because the criteria have not changed.

The last thing I will say is that there is much trumpeting over the fact that the government has been beaten into submission by disabled veterans in court and now it is paying up. The exact same day as that lawsuit was launched, there was another lawsuit launched by disabled RCMP veterans. The government has refused to include them in the settlement discussions.

Therefore, does the minister really believe this budget has gone far enough to address the serious problems that exist in the veterans community?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there are important needs for the veterans community and their families, and we are always striving to improve our program. That is exactly what we would do in this budget.

I can assure the member that we will not do like the Liberals did, which was to cut those programs, to cut the funeral and burial program. This is the last thing Canadians would expect us to do. Therefore no, we are not doing that. We are not cutting this program.

Instead of speaking of large numbers, let us see what the impact would be for a deceased veteran who had a service-related injury. We are proposing to raise the maximum funeral services rate from $3,600 to $7,376 on top of continuing to provide for the full cost of burial. This means that if a Canadian who has a service-related injury is dying and is in need, this government will cover funeral and all burial costs. This is in the budget. This is why I invite my colleague to support the legislation.

I would like to comment further on the performance and the recognition of the veterans community for the harmonization of our program, but I will share the time with some colleagues.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Joe Comartin]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada; the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Science and Technology.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to address the House this afternoon about the merits of economic action plan 2013.

I would like to especially thank the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Minister for La Francophonie for his kind words at the beginning of his speech.

Although the worst of the economic crisis seems to be behind us, the government's priority must continue to be the economy and job creation. In that regard, economic action plan 2013 is right on the mark.

When the recession struck the best country in the world in 2008, the government responded with a bold plan to invest in our infrastructure. The city of Ottawa and the district of Ottawa—Orléans have benefited greatly from this economic stimulus program.

We need only consider the construction of an east-west light rail in Ottawa, a total investment of $2.1 billion, $785 million of which is from the federal taxpayers through the building Canada plan and the federal gas tax fund.

What is more, this capital investment, which is the top and only priority of the City of Ottawa, will create 20,000 jobs a year until 2018.

I would like to take this opportunity to salute the member for Ottawa West—Nepean and Mayor Jim Watson and councillors Rainer Bloess, Bob Monette, Stephen Blais and Tim Tierney for their leadership in advancing this file.

We can also point to the investment of nearly $25 million for the first two phases of the Ottawa River action plan and of $6.7 million for the extension of the Hunt Club Road to Highway 417.

Thanks to the infrastructure improvement fund announced in January 2009 to help kick-start the Canadian economy, the people of Ottawa—Orléans have seen the delivery of 11 projects that directly affect them, at a value of over $11 million.

With an economic recovery that was lagging due to economic instability in other countries, the government understood that it had to meet the demands of municipalities and move ahead with another plan for long-term investment in Canada's infrastructure.

What economic action plan 2013 is proposing is $53 billion over 10 years.

Even though construction of Ottawa's light rail began only last week, elected officials and employees are already working on plans to expand it—even as far as the eastern end of Orléans.

This important project is close to my heart, and it could be supported by the building Canada plan and the community infrastructure improvement fund.

As you all know, linguistic duality is one of the values of this country that I cherish the most.

The French and English languages are integral to our history, our identity and our future. They are a treasure that must be defended.

This is a value dear to the hearts of the wise electors of Ottawa—Orléans, where about 30% of the population is French-speaking.

That is not to say that this value is not also important to the English-speaking residents of Ottawa—Orléans. When they come to settle there, they know that one of their immediate neighbours is going to be French-speaking and they regard this as an asset. They regard linguistic duality as an asset.

The government shares this way of thinking. In addition to supporting the spirit of Bill C-419, the language skills act sponsored by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent, the government has slightly increased the envelope of the roadmap for official languages, which stands at over $1.1 billion for 2013-18. This represents the most far-reaching investment in official languages in our history—an increase of 40% over the previous government's plan.

The new road map will continue to support the learning of English and French as second languages and will continue its support for minority school systems so as to foster the development of citizens and communities.

In an interview with L'Express, Ottawa's French-language weekly newspaper, Marie-France Kenny, the president of the Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, said:

We are happy; this will provide important leverage. For us, it's a real feat for the communities, the minister and the Prime Minister to have managed to maintain funding under the roadmap. For us, it is proof of the importance attributed to linguistic duality and the hard work that has been done in our communities for a year and a half to make our priorities known.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage promised to listen to Canadians before renewing the road map. He toured the country, organizing 23 round tables, in two of which I participated. He delivered the goods.

A little earlier, I was saying that job creation had to continue to be the government's priority. Small and medium-size enterprises are the engine of the Canadian economy. SMEs are the backbone of the Ottawa—Orléans economy. Businesses such as SURE Print, Lacroix Source for Sports in Orléans, the Massage and Treatment Clinic and Cuisine & Passion have come to set up shop.

It is my pleasure to recognize André Lacroix, who has owned Lacroix Source for Sports for 40 years. A terrific businessman, he is equally effective at giving back to the community, and he was awarded the Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee Medal.

These companies are very well represented by the Orléans Chamber of Commerce and its dynamic team, with its president, Dan Levesque, its board of directors and its executive director, Jamie Kwong.

In addition to reducing income taxes and cutting red tape, the economic action plan is proposing to expand and extend the hiring credit for small business for one year.

This measure, which has proven its worth in recent years, should benefit 560,000 SMEs.

Furthermore, we are going to increase the lifetime capital gains exemption from $750,000 to $800,000, and then we will index it. This positive measure will improve the return on investment in small businesses by making things easier for entrepreneurs who want to pass on the family business to the next generation of Canadians.

The fate of our soldiers and veterans is very important to me. These brave people have sacrificed so much that our country can enjoy the benefits of freedom, democracy, human rights and the rule of law. We owe our freedom to them. I see them often, especially when I go to my weekly Saturday breakfast at the Royal Canadian Legion in Orléans.

Economic action plan 2013 contains measures to support these important people.

We are suggesting an investment of $1.9 billion over seven years to ensure that our disabled, ill or aging veterans and their families receive the support they need.

We are also proposing to double the reimbursement ceiling for the funeral and burial program. It is the least we can do to offer dignified funeral services for those who have lost their lives defending our country.

Families and communities are not being left behind. We are proposing to invest $1.9 billion over five years to create more affordable housing and to combat the unfortunate phenomenon of homelessness. We would also like to support families who want to adopt a child by granting them tax relief.

Economic action plan 2013 is a reasonable plan that will help our country prosper in spite of these uncertain times.

[Mathieu Ravignat, NDP, Pontiac, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very attentively to the speech by my honourable colleague, who is the member of Parliament for the town where I grew up. I know the area very well. I have a question for him.

I understand that the budget is going to be advantageous for some groups, but there is a specific group for whom the budget will be distinctly disadvantageous: public servants in the area. There are many public servants in the member’s riding, and I am wondering if he finds anything of benefit for them in this budget. Tens of thousands of positions have been cut in the region.

How can he defend the budget, in light of this situation?

I would still like to thank him for his speech, though.

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, public servants are also taxpayers.

These taxpayers and these public servants keep supporting the government, over and over and despite all the pressure from unions, because they know we are vigilant about public money.

In terms of the moves happening in the public service, they are inconvenient, but they are carried out much more openly and with a great deal more compassion than they were in 1995, under the previous regime. What is really happening is that young people are being promoted and people who are taking early retirement are going on with their lives, and perhaps they are even happier than they were before.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I again want to address my question to the comments made by the member for Ottawa—Orléans with respect to the measures in the budget for veterans and his specific reference to the doubling of the amount of support that is available for funeral and burial expenses.

The chair of the Last Post Fund testified at the veterans committee a year and a half ago, as follows:

For more than a decade, the Last Post Fund has advocated that the program be extended to modern-day veterans in the same way it was offered to traditional veterans. Unfortunately, the governments of Canada during this period have declined to do so, despite the urging of all veterans organizations.

That wrong has still not been righted by this budget. This budget has increased the amount available to those who are eligible, but it has not changed the eligibility criteria. Not one additional veteran will benefit. Is this really the best we can do?

[Royal Galipeau, Conservative, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member, but he should probably be red in the face for asking it, because members of the third party do not have very much credibility on issues that have to do with veterans. As far as I remember, the last minister of veterans affairs of the Liberal Party who was believable with veterans was Dan MacDonald. Some of the members across the way were not even born then.

I am glad he asked, because the doubling is from $3,600 to $4,400. I visit veterans every week and talk to 50 to 100 of them. They told me it is just what they wanted.

[Andrew Cash, NDP, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleagues for that encouraging response. I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I rise today on behalf of the members of my riding of Davenport in Toronto to speak to the bill, the so-called economic action plan.

We have been arguing since I got here in 2011 for some kind of action from the government for cities, some kind of action around, for example, gridlock in Toronto and the fact that the Board of Trade has pegged the cost of gridlock at about $6 billion a year in the GTA alone. That is a huge drag on the economy of the biggest city in the country.

While I know many members opposite love to hate the city of Toronto, I must say that if the health of the economy in Toronto is going well, we can bet the economy of the region improves, and I dare say that of the country.

There is really no focused attention on the GTA in this budget. In fact the government has cut almost $4.7 billion in infrastructure from the budget. When we have a gridlock to the tune of $6 billion in Toronto, we would think there would be something in the budget on that.

Just recently, McMaster University and the United Way tabled a report that showed that almost 50% of workers in the GTA, in Toronto, could not find stable, full-time employment. That is 50% of the workers in the biggest city in the country who cannot find a full-time job.

Some of the members opposite like to pretend we are still living in Pleasantville, 1950, not that it was so pleasant, I do not think, in 1950. However, they like to think that people can still get a job for life when they leave school, and then they can retire with a pension and live their senior years in dignity.

That story, if it ever was true, certainly ended. Today, young people are entering the job market to serial contract jobs. Those jobs have no benefits, and they certainly have no pension and no job security. This is the kind of economy into which the government is welcoming young people, if they can get into it in the first place.

We already know that the official unemployment rate for young people in this country is about 15%, but we know that the unofficial rate is much higher. That 15% is extremely high. It is higher than any of the members across the way ever experienced when they were young, but this is what we are welcoming young people into in the job market.

It is hard to stomach sometimes listening to the government members crow about how great the economy is. They should come to Toronto and talk to the many young people who are working these serial part-time jobs.

The Conservatives have nothing to say. They wax poetic in the way they can, which is marginal to say the least, about the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan. That is fantastic. Their jobs plan is to have everybody who does not live in Saskatchewan and Alberta move there to find the jobs.

Here on this side of the House we are proud of the fact that in those regions things are going well, but I came here to represent the people of Davenport, people in Toronto, and the government has absolutely ignored this city in this budget, certainly, but not just in this budget.

It is an outrage that we have engineers and physicists working as cab drivers in the city while the government is allowing temporary foreign workers to come and essentially work in jobs that people, many of them Canadian citizens, cannot access.

It is an outrage to most fair-minded people in our country. It is certainly an outrage when we try to imagine the economy of Toronto the way it is today and the needs we have in the city. For example, we have over 100,000 families on the affordable housing waiting list in the city of Toronto. There are millions of people across the country on an affordable housing waiting list. There is nothing in the budget to deal with the issue.

We know the economic multiplier of building affordable housing, and the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has mapped it out. We know that this is a key economic engine, yet the government has continually wasted opportunities to deal with the issue. It can only be described as one of the most serious issues we have in the country. In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has said that affordable housing is the key issue for big cities, small towns and rural municipalities.

Certainly the members from Alberta and Saskatchewan know this quite well, yet they sit there day in and day out, just like the Conservative members from Toronto sit day in and day out and vote against the interests of cities. We can only see that writ large in this budget.

I want to address another issue that urban workers deal with on a daily basis, and there is nothing in the budget that speaks to it. We are trying to develop a 21st century economy and part of that, necessarily, involves what analysts peg as either a $60-billion or $80-billion industry. That is the arts and culture sector.

We hear day in and day out from the government that it loves Canadian history and it is a big supporter of this and that battle. For example, it is willing to spend tons of money on the War of 1812. However, many of the arts and culture institutions in our country, I believe 10 of them, are being deeply affected in the budget. These institutions nurture the sector and teach the next generation of technicians, artists, directors and curators, these professionals we rely on not just to preserve our culture but to gather it together and share it with others. The government has thrown away all pretensions of these agencies being third-party, arm's-length to the government with the changes it is proposing in the budget. It is outrageous.

I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that tomorrow is World Press Freedom Day. I thought it would be worth it to share a small quote, and then I will conclude.

I quote, “...the fostering of an independent, pluralistic and free press is essential to the development and maintenance of democracy in a nation, and for economic development.”

Note “economic development”.

“By an independent press, we mean a press independent from governmental, political or economic control or from control of materials and infrastructure essential for the production and dissemination of newspapers, magazines and periodicals.”

The quote comes from the Declaration of Windhoek on May 3, 1993 at the UN General Assembly. The declaration calls for free, independent, pluralistic media worldwide, characterizing the free press as essential to democracy and as a fundamental human right. Measures in this budget wreak havoc on this essential element of a democratic society.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague mentioned housing, something that always piques my attention.

In Toronto, the vacancy rate, or in other words the number of available housing units, is very low. It is around 1.5%. This results in higher rents, because not many places are available. However, there is not much money in the budget for affordable housing. What does this kind of thing do to the economy of a big city like Toronto?