Adam Vaughan

[The Budget, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I have a couple of quick comments. The member opposite said he was worried that the Liberal leader was taking advice from an American. I would like to inform him that Mr. Friedman is also an American. However, I am not sure it is the origin of the advice but rather the quality of the advice that is in question here.

As for the Constitution, the Conservatives Party has gone to the Supreme Court 10 times and lost 10 in a row. That is the constitutional record of a party that has no regard for the Constitution whatsoever.

I am curious about this mythical couple that has three credit cards and still has a little borrowing capacity. The response of the member and the government is that the only thing this couple should do is pay down their debt. Does the member opposite not also realize that they could take that remaining credit, perhaps build an extension on their house, invest in much better insulation and thereby create jobs for people who do renovations?

Perhaps they could take in a boarder and create some income, so they could cut their costs, save the environment, provide housing for someone, create income and savings, and pay down their debt all at the same time while growing their economic base and their economic capacity.

Is that not also a vision that could be embraced as one that is positive for more than just people holding the debt but in fact for the whole community?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 22nd, 2015]

With respect to the expiration of federal housing operating agreements: (a) how many agreements expired, broken down by year, since 2014; (b) what are the details of the agreements identified in (a), including (i) name or title of the agreement, (ii) how many units were affected, (iii) what was the date of expiry, (iv) in which municipality, province, territory, Aboriginal community, or other jurisdiction were they located; (c) how many agreements are set to expire by December 31, 2015; and (d) what are the details of the agreements identified in (c), including (i) name or title of the agreement, (ii) how many units will be affected, (iii) in which municipality, province, territory, Aboriginal community, or other jurisdiction are they located?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, April 22nd, 2015]

With respect to citizenship ceremonies held outside of government facilities since January 1, 2006: (a) where did the ceremonies take place; (b) did a third party, such as a corporation, not-for-profit, or charity, partner with the government for the ceremonies; (c) in the cases where there were partners involved, what were the names of these third parties; (d) were any gifts provided to the new citizens, their families, or others in attendance; and (e) if gifts were provided, what are the details regarding these gifts?

[Points of Order, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question period, a member opposite, I believe it was the member speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister, referenced the riding of Trinity—Spadina and its member having used funds illegally and using taxpayers' dollars to fund offices in Quebec.

I want to assure the House that I have never done that. The member for Trinity—Spadina has not opened offices in Quebec, has never been brought forward with these charges, and has never even been asked to explain any of these charges. I do not know why my riding and I were referenced in such a way.

I would like the comment withdrawn, please.

[Infrastructure, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that the mayors were praising the 2017 budget and the 2019 budget, not this year's budget.

On transit, the government is not just doing nothing, it is doing next to nothing, and it will be doing nothing for two whole years. It is ridiculous. The minister is telling folks that they are actually going to be stuck in transit waiting for a bus for two years, and it is never going to come if it keeps this up.

Gridlock costs the country's economy billions of dollars. The delayed budget and the delayed funding is not helping Canadians get to work. The drive-by budget has literally missed the bus.

When will the government fund transit and why will it not fund it this year?

[Infrastructure, April 22nd, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, cities and towns across the country had hoped that the finance minister was taking the extra time to write a budget so he could rethink this crazy notion of deferring infrastructure spending until the Tories were out of office. He did not. That means cities like Calgary, Vancouver and Toronto that got no money last year will, once again, get no money this year.

On housing, there is not one new dollar for new housing to shelter people. Housing does not just fight poverty; it builds cities and protects people.

Why has the government turned its back on cities and why is it turning its back on vulnerable people?

[Rail Transportation, April 21st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, during the debate yesterday we learned that in the middle of a disastrous oil spill in Vancouver, nobody in the federal government thought it was necessary to contact Vancouver city hall. Apparently that was somebody else's job.

It is not much different when it comes to rail. The mayors of Oakville, Burlington, Milton and Halton Hills are pleading with the Minister of Transport to help stop CN as it starts to expand its services in those areas in a very dangerous way.

The minister is not only in charge of this file, it is her riding. This is the question because it is her job not someone else's job, but maybe it will be soon. Will the minister sit down with those cities? Will she start working with cities across the country to protect public safety?

[Infrastructure, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, that was more or less the answer I received the first time, and that is problematic.

For example, in Nova Scotia, one city alone, Cape Breton Regional Municipality, has a $450 million need for a new water plant. That need was driven by changes that were decided upon in this House. When federal water standards were changed, obligations were downloaded, or side-loaded as cities often describe it, onto the regional municipalities.

The amount of money for the province is equal to the need of one single municipality. That shows how inadequate the funding is. Not only that, the money that is being talked about does not arrive for 10 years.

The question is very simple. Will the budget tomorrow, and the plan of the government, make that money an annual amount, and make it predictable to cities? Is it sufficient to get things like the water plant in Sydney, Nova Scotia, built, or are they going to have to wait 10 years?

The subsequent question is, where is the money for the repair of existing infrastructure? We have heard the plans for new infrastructure, but repair is just as critical.

The final component to this, which flows from many of these projects, is the issue of housing. Housing is not an eligible category under the infrastructure program. As a result, wait lists across the country are magnificent. There are 200,000 people in Toronto alone waiting for housing.

I will give a quick recap. Is the money going to be annual? Is it going to be more than is currently announced? Is housing going to be eligible?

[Infrastructure, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the question I rose on originally remains a persistent problem in this country: cities do not have the resources they need to both build the platform for economic success or even maintain the infrastructure required to sustain a modern economy.

The question, in particular, was around the city of Regina, a city which I visited. I spoke with the board of trade, the mayor, councillors, housing advocates, a long list of individuals who are looking for partnership in Ottawa and instead quite often are subjected effectively to a series of promises that never seem to arrive in these cities. If one were to ask the mayor directly, “Did you get money from the new building Canada fund last year”, the answer would be no. There was federal support from things like the gas tax started by Paul Martin, perfected by others, and added to by the current government, but it is still existing money which builds on a base of funding. It is not money for new infrastructure and it certainly is not money to repair existing and aging infrastructure. This question is pertinent certainly as we head toward the budget tomorrow.

There has also been no money delivered this year from the new building Canada fund. It is back-end loaded. The fund arrives in 10 years' time. That money is needed now by the cities. The cities are pleading with the federal government to get the money moving, but because of the delay in the budget and because of the way in which the program is currently structured, the money is not going to arrive this year either. This means we have now lost two construction seasons not due to the promise of infrastructure funding, but the design of the system and the delivery of the funds themselves.

My question is a very simple one. Is there going to be a stop to the money being back-end loaded? Is there going to be an annual amount of infrastructure funding delivered to cities in a predictable and robust way that allows them not only to do multi-year planning but to do annual construction build-out so they do not have to wait 10 years for the government's promises to arrive in their cities? In Regina, the needs are very clear. It needs $30 million for a new transit facility. It needs millions for highway overpasses to facilitate a modern economy, which is starting to struggle without being diversified and they need to diversify. It needs $67 million for the railroad revitalization program, a major redevelopment of the downtown core, which would boost the city's capacity to raise taxes and to part with Ottawa.

Is money going to arrive on an annual basis, and if it is, how much is coming this year and how much is coming next year?

[Business of Supply, April 20th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I, too, listened to question period and the debate before question period. I was puzzled by this notion of world class, but also heard at the same time that we could improve on it, which I guess makes it universe class or out of this world. I have no idea how one would improve upon world class, but improvement is possible, apparently.

I also heard that we should not judge the response until we had the facts. I am curious as to how something could be assessed as world class if there was a public admission that all the facts were not available.

I would also like to hear the member's comments about how slow it was to get the mayor of Vancouver notified. As well, the other issue critical to this is if there had been Coast Guard vessels in the harbour, maybe they could have gotten the appropriate people on site sooner, but that without them, that is what the delay was all about.