Adam Vaughan

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member opposite talk about the need for tax cuts. Putting aside the fact that taxes did not go up for small businesses, future reductions have been deferred, and taxes did go down this year.

I have been reading through all of the private members' bills that the Conservative Party has introduced in the House this term. It is quite fascinating to note that we do not find tax cuts amongst them. We found things like an act to amend the Criminal Code. We found an act to establish a national appreciation day, a much higher priority than tax cuts in terms of the private members across the way. We found an act to amend the firearms legislation and an act to amend corrections and conditional release. We did not find tax cuts as being a popular component of their private members' bills.

I am curious as to why the member herself has not brought forth a private member's bill, if the issue is that important to her.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, June 6th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous questions with great interest because it was not pressure from any political party; it is a formula that includes jurisdictions. It is not political pressure. It is not favouritism. It is evidence-based decision-making. I am glad that my colleague across the way knew that.

However, it was the first question that caught my attention and the infrastructure deficit. There was underspending by the previous government. There were zero infrastructure dollars in Alberta. Not a single new dollar from the new building Canada fund was spent in Alberta in the last two years. That money could have been putting people to work in Alberta. Instead, it sat in bank accounts in Ottawa, even though the billboards went up in that beautiful province.

However, this is the issue. The $440-billion infrastructure deficit in this country has driven into places like Toronto, our home city, a $2.6-billion backlog in infrastructure repairs for Toronto Community Housing.

How will this budget address the deficit, both the fiscal and the infrastructure deficit, left to us by the previous government, a deplorable state of economic affairs, but even worse when it comes to measuring infrastructure impact?

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, June 1st, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member opposite for allowing me to once again try to provide facts and information for the analysis of the party opposite when it discusses the proposal that was never going to go anywhere at Billy Bishop airport. It was never 30 planes. It was never 30 jets. It was 12 jets and 18 Q400s. The Q400 order can still go forward and likely will still go forward, because we have not closed the airport. The airport is still allowed to operate in its current configuration.

The12 jets that the Conservatives tried to shoehorn into an airport is the proposal they keep presenting to us as a viable operation. They wanted to build the Ottawa International Airport on a piece of property that is one-seventh the land mass. It was going to cost close to $1.4 billion to shoehorn in this airport. Is this really the depth of analysis that the Conservatives have brought to this issue? They do not know the number of planes, the infrastructure costs, the length of the runway, and they do not know what the hell they are talking about.

[Air Canada Public Participation Act, May 16th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to listen to my colleague across the way, on two fronts: one, the very strong arguments he made that legislation can in fact protect good-paying jobs; two, that government interaction can generate growth in the employment sector.

However, what I would like him to comment or reflect upon is that the previous Conservative government had carriage of this file. It came to the conclusion—I think I am paraphrasing it correctly—that effectively it agreed with Air Canada that there was no provision to legislate there. It concluded that the legislation was weak and that it was not going to intervene. Effectively, it decided to do nothing.

Was doing nothing on this file preferable to securing the jobs that would be secured through Bill C-14? Was the previous government's position of doing nothing on this file but agreeing with Air Canada on it having no obligation to do any work in any one of these major cities in fact the responsible direction to go, or is this position an advancement, by the fact that it protects real jobs in real cities?

[Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, May 11th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for what is an extraordinary bill and one that would have the potential to transform infrastructure projects into not just good strong economic development but good strong community development.

Is the member aware that the Toronto region board of trade has endorsed just such a policy as good economic policy, good economic development to get youth unemployment tackled in major reasons, as has the greater Vancouver board of trade and the board of trade of Metropolitan Montreal?

Is the member also aware that the TPP actually allows for local procurement under one of its clauses to protect the ability for national and subnational governments to ensure that marginalized communities get jobs as part of any new trade agreement?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, having sat through that speech, I think what the member wants beyond reinvesting in the auto fund is to speed up the RFP for the bridge. What date would he like the RFP issued by?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 10th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the needs that were expressed in two areas in particular, one in the area of housing and the other in the area of infrastructure; and the frustration that the member opposite has in not receiving funds to support these two critically important programs, which finally have been spoken to with great authority in this budget.

Is the member aware that the lack of an agreement on infrastructure, particularly on housing, with the Government of Quebec is the primary reason why zero dollars flowed to that province? In particular, zero dollars flowed to cities like Montreal and Quebec City from infrastructure funds announced. Even though the announcements were loud and proud, the dollars were never cut and the cheques were never delivered.

Is the member aware that the failure of the previous government to get an infrastructure and housing agreement with the Province of Quebec is primarily responsible for the lack of programs in that particular province?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 10th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is somewhat comforting to now realize that the economic theory of the Conservative Party comes from a work of fiction.

Putting aside The Hunger Games and the appetite that leaves us to go after this a bit harder, I am kind of struck by something.

The party opposite often references the New York Times article about how well the middle class is doing. I often wonder if those members have actually read it beyond the headline, because the second paragraph says the following:

Members of the middle class in Canada worry about whether they can afford college for their children and whether their children will find jobs afterward. Housing costs are a major concern, as are everyday costs for transportation and mobile-phone plans. Middle-class Canadians worry about inequality.

In light of the fact that this is what Canadians are worried about, is it any surprise they changed governments in the last election?

However, what surprises me more is that the party opposite often rails about the deficit, somewhat oblivious to the fact that the Conservatives added $150 billion to the debt.

In light of the fact that the member opposite does not believe in Keynesian economics, does not believe we should go into debt when we are not in recession, which the Conservatives did in 2007 well before the 2008 recession, is he willing to resign and sit as an independent because of the disgrace of that party and its record on fiscal management?

[Jane Jacobs, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, 100 years ago this week, an extraordinary woman was born: Jane Jacobs. Jane Jacobs was an internationally recognized writer, an urban thinker, and a bit of a troublemaker. Her books on cities have been translated into dozens of languages. Even though they were written over half a century ago, many are still being used to teach in universities to this very day.

Jane Jacobs chose to live in Canada. It was my privilege to call her a friend and a neighbour.

When she died a decade ago, her friends and family chose to recognize her life by holding a series of walks in Toronto, talking tours that showcased her lessons, her life, and the impact that she had upon that city and others.

A decade later, these walks are now being held in close to 200 cities around the world, including in Canada. In fact, in Toronto this weekend, there will be more than 200 walks in neighbourhoods right across the city. I will be leading one on Friday and on Saturday. Members are welcome to join.

As we recognize the remarkable life of Jane Jacobs, I encourage everyone to look up janeswalk.org and join a walk this weekend to celebrate how city building and building better neighbourhoods is not just important work, but can be a lot of fun, too.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 1, May 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things transit planners and transit operators across the country know is that to make transit investments more effective and to deliver the greenhouse gas transformation that is required through investments in transit as well as to get the most riders moving quickest and to deal with gridlock right across the country we build from strength. In other words, we build transit systems out from where they are highly used and highly congested into areas that have less. We move from strength into areas that need the development.

This is phase one of the transit program. As we start to build that stronger transit across the country, communities that are not dealt with specifically, as the member has identified, in the budget this year, phase two is on its way. The second, third, and fourth years of this mandate will show that the system we have chosen to invest in will provide the strength and the capacity as we grow from strength into new areas as part of our strategy.

Transit operators and transit properties across the country have been asking for for this. We have listened, we have responded, and this will deliver the results we all hope to see in our country.