Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, maybe the member should have connected. He may have found out some things and changed parties.

The issue is this. Not only is the advertising about infrastructure that does not happen, the government's own accountability offices have said that the ads are ineffective. At some point one would think that the government that claims it wants to do nonpartisan ads, that it is advertising real services, that its ads meet the highest test, would simply agree with this policy because its ads meet the test.

The fact that the Conservatives are protesting and not going to support this motion shows that they know their ads are in fact partisan, ineffectual, and a waste of money. However, they are not just a waste of money in terms of wasting money on advertising. When we look at the priorities that are not being addressed by the government and could be addressed by the money that is being spent on advertising, it is actually shameful.

There is not a penny to improve first nations education on reserves in this year's budget, despite report after report and plea after plea and representation after representation by first nations and aboriginal leaders in this country. There is not a penny.

However, the Conservatives can spend $100,000 advertising during a sports event. That is a strange set of priorities for Canadians to understand. When the Conservatives will not even submit those ads to be tested to see if they are nonpartisan or accurate but would rather protest, the Conservatives' cynical approach has reached new levels and has to be curbed.

I agree that there have been problems in the past. I was a journalist who covered those problems, those issues. The challenge we have in front of us is not to go back and reprosecute, re-inquire, and repay, because it has already been repaid and it cannot be done twice.

The issue is this. When are we going to move forward with an advertising policy that legitimately explains new policies to Canadians, at the same time as actually leaving enough money in the budget to deliver new programs to Canadians? When are we going to have ads that do not get appealed to Advertising Standards council and are shown to be bad advertising?

That is the challenge and the question being put before the House today. We need a new standard. I think all parties have said that partisan advertising by the government should not be allowed. This bill accomplishes that. It will be interesting to see which parties support it.

We have said that the priority of Canadians is not to convince Canadians that the government they have elected is necessarily doing a good or bad job; it is to advertise government services that Canadians need. One would think that this party that claims to be a good financial steward would understand it is good fiscal policy and support a motion like that. It would have nothing to hide if all its ads were subjected to that process.

Yet, what we get are protests. There are $750 million not arriving in cities, not arriving in first nation communities and not being delivered to small towns that need new water plants. Nothing is being done with that money other than to support the government's ideological objectives.

One would think the backbench members would start to revolt when programs are advertised that do not exist and slogans are used that have no meaning. One would think they would start to protest when their very own communities cannot get the infrastructure funding they need, and instead dollars are being wasted on Super Bowl ads and NHL playoff ads.

I would add one other thing. One of the most persistent problems we have in our country is youth unemployment. One ad, at $100,000 for 30 seconds, could produce hours and hours of work for young people doing real work, building real strength in communities and adding to the economic capacity of our country. Instead we have advertisement that basically says that people might want to apply for a program if Parliament happens to pass it. It may be a benefit, but it may not, but people will find out later, not to worry.

As Marshall McLuhan said, nobody believes the advertising. As the reports have said, they are ineffectual. Why would the Conservative government continue with an ineffective policy and throw $750 million at it? Where on God's good earth is that sound fiscal policy, good social policy or at the end of the day even good advertising?

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I had the great honour when I was a child to be Marshall McLuhan's paperboy. Marshall McLuhan had a lot to say about advertising. One of the things he said baffled him was why anyone would do it when nobody believes it. There is a certain validity to that because when we look at these ads, we cannot believe them because in fact they are not true.

Nowhere is that more profoundly obvious than on the infrastructure ads that we see running on television. The Conservatives claim to be spending new dollars on infrastructure, and yet the budget documents clearly indicate there is no new money in the budget this year, and no new money was there last year.

When we ask questions about it, the Conservatives cite things like the gas tax, which is something that a Liberal government put in place. They seem to think that answers the questions being asked.

However, when we talk to the mayor of Vancouver and ask what he got in new building Canada funds last year, the answer is zero. When we ask the mayor of Calgary, the answer is zero: Winnipeg, zero; Regina, zero; Toronto, zero; Mississauga, zero; Ottawa, zero; Montreal, zero; Halifax, zero. There is not a single new penny in new building Canada infrastructure funds that the government has announced as the biggest rollout in the history of the country. It has never been rolled out.

However, the advertising has landed in these cities faster than the infrastructure dollars. There is a problem there. Conservatives can quote scandals and problems that have existed with other governments until they are quite literally blue in the face.

Let us talk about a specific scandal and all the money wasted building railroads in the country. Imagine if all the bribes paid to Conservatives had actually been spent on building rail infrastructure back to the time of Confederation. How much better would our rail system would be if John A. Macdonald had not been so corrupt? I do not see the Conservatives threatening to call an inquiry into themselves on that one.

[Business of Supply, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments regarding the Gomery inquiry. I note that the Liberals called that inquiry to hold themselves accountable in front of the country, and they were held accountable. We also paid back the $1.14 million that was directly ascribed to our misconduct. That is a far different record than other parties in this House might claim credit for.

As well, it is important to suggest that the $40 million mark that keeps being bandied about has no basis in fact. Members will note that the Conservatives never make reference to that amount outside of the House of Commons, perhaps because their privilege does not extend outside these four walls.

The member opposite spoke about how critical and how important the advertising is to let people know what good work the current government is ostensibly doing. In Prince Edward Island, the cost of one billboard was almost five times more than the cost for the actual project that was being advertised. All the government did was change the doorknobs to make them accessible to those with disabilities. The billboard cost more than the infrastructure program. I would love to hear the member opposite explain that one.

The member also spoke about the need for health information to be distributed. What we have heard from the commissioner who oversees languages is these communications are only communicated in English. If it is critical information, why is the government not talking to all Canadians? If it is so critical, why is it not talking to people who are francophones?

[Petitions, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of members of my riding protesting the cuts to the CBC.

Not only is French and English programming being significantly impacted by these cuts, but in the riding I represent, hundreds of jobs are being lost and hundreds of families are being impacted.

The signatories to this petition ask the government to restore the funding, restore the independence of the CBC and make sure that our public broadcaster remains public.

[The Budget, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance says that he has no idea how many jobs his budget will create. That is understandable because most of the country has no idea why he is the finance minister. I am wondering even if he is the finance minister.

The reason that he has no real job numbers is because the budget has no real numbers. For example, none of the so-called new infrastructure money will even arrive this year, which means no new bridges, no new water plants, no new transit, no new housing. None of them will get built, thanks to the minister's inaction.

Why will the minister not fight unemployment? Why will he not help vulnerable Canadians? Why will he not invest in cities now?

[Jonathan Crombie, April 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to remember Jonathan Crombie, known to many as the actor who played Gilbert Blythe on the acclaimed TV series Anne of Green Gables.

Jonathan Crombie also performed at the Stratford Festival and on Broadway. Jonathan Crombie is the son of the former cabinet minister and member of Parliament David Crombie, who was also mayor of Toronto.

My father served on council at the same time. I first met Jonathan during a royal visit to Toronto, with the children of all the city councillors looking out over the square as the councillors greeted the Queen; all of us except for one. Jonathan was at play in the outer office drawing some lost the most appallingly mischievous pictures I have ever seen. Each one funnier than the last. Each picture pinned to the wall of an unsuspecting staff member when they returned from the square.

The Queen may have been visiting, but Jonathan took centre stage. His talent, charm and wit made him a successful actor, and those are the characteristics that his family now misses. Jonathan passed away in New York City this month, and while his acting lives on through TV and film appearances, through the gift of life Jonathan also now lives on in the lives of others.

To his family our condolences and for his gifts to us all, we are truly thankful and remember him well.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's story and heard many of the stories that define the riding I represent not too far away.

The question I have for the member is this. We heard earlier today from the Conservative side that there is transit money in Toronto, specifically with respect to the Sheppard subway. I am curious as to whether or not the NDP would sustain that investment and would continue to spend the $625 million of federal money earmarked for that project on the Sheppard subway.

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, one of the most significant issues facing smaller municipalities, particularly municipalities in the part of the country the member opposite represents, is water quality. Federal changes to water quality standards have side-loaded millions and millions of dollars onto smaller municipalities to upgrade water facilities. There is not a penny in new infrastructure money in this budget that recognizes these new obligations. In particular, in small towns in the Bruce Peninsula, where water quality has been a significant issue over the last 20 years, cuts to water quality support have played a significant role in putting people's health at risk.

Why has the government refused to step up on water quality, refused to invest infrastructure dollars in those projects, and why, for two years now, have cities and municipalities across this country received zero dollars in funding specified for water infrastructure?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the statements made about small business. There are different types of small business. There are multimillionaire lawyers who are self-incorporated and are consultants to other multimillion dollar corporations. They are a small business because there is one employee in their corporation. Cutting their taxes is cutting taxes for affluents, but there are also small businesses that employ 10 people or 15 people, such as a corner store or a small manufacturing base. Cutting their taxes creates jobs and opportunities for other Canadians.

Would the NDP support a plan that tied the small business tax cut to job creation rather than simply allowing affluent consultants pay less tax?

[The Budget, April 23rd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the transit announcement.

While we all welcome a federal presence on the file, the presence is the problem. Nothing is present this year; no money until 2017. The budget should not be called the 2015 action plan; it is the 2017 action plan.

The $1 billion does not arrive for years and years. What arrives in 2017 is $250 million. The funding formulas, which are constant across this country on transit, mean that for Ontario it is $80 million, and for the GTA, where we represent ridings, it is probably about $40 million, which means $20 million for the York Region and Durham and Pickering and everywhere else, including Mississauga, and it is about $20 million a year for the City of Toronto.

Twenty million dollars in the City of Toronto does not even buy a fleet of street cars. It does not build a subway station. It does not put track down. It is nothing. Twenty million dollars just does not pull its weight in transit.

If this money were allowed to be used for state of good repair, it would be making a contribution. Will the government allow these dollars, the $20 million, for state of good repair, when the $20 million will not build a new subway line, will not build a new street car line?