Andrew Cash

[The Economy, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, positive contributions mean that we are making a situation better. It means we are actually creating a climate where fewer people are on waiting lists for affordable housing. That is how one measures whether what one is doing works.

We can talk all we want about putting gaffers tape on roofs and call it repairs to housing, but we have to look at the number of Canadians on waiting lists for affordable housing across all municipalities and then factor in the millions of Canadians who are in need of core housing. Somewhere along the line the government has to accept the fact that whatever it thinks it is doing or says it is doing is not working and is not enough. Canadians need and deserve much better.

[The Economy, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House this evening to speak on behalf of the residents in my riding of Davenport in Toronto to issues that are of deep concern to them and issues that they want me to raise in this place.

Tonight I will talk a bit about urban issues, the issues that are deeply affecting big cities like Toronto. Toronto has, if we include the GTA, the greater Toronto area, about 5.5 million people, which represents roughly around 20% of Canada's GDP. We have a multiplicity of human resources to draw from. About 50% of Canada's new immigrants settle in the greater Toronto area and yet we are faced with some particular issues on which we have tried to get some engagement with the government side.

The government does like to invoke jurisdictional boundaries as its reason for inaction on certain urban files. We think that is unfortunate because if there were leadership and a will on the part of the government to really focus on a city's agenda, then we could make some movement on some of these issues.

For example, notwithstanding all the numbers that the government likes to throw about at will, the issue of affordable housing in the city of Toronto has not been solved. In fact, it is an issue that is affecting not only low-income people, but it is also affecting middle-income Canadians as well. It is almost impossible for people to buy a house in the city of Toronto unless they have significant means and it is getting harder for families to find rental accommodations.

The government loves to say that it will let the free market handle these things, that the market will solve the issue of affordable housing in Toronto. I do not know how many years or how many decades it needs to finally realize that the market will not solve the affordable housing crisis that affects cities like Toronto and actually affects cities, small towns and rural municipalities across the country.

The government needs to take a much broader look at urban issues, issues of transit, issues of housing and issues of support for new Canadians. It has cut funding to immigrant settlement services in Toronto and yet 50% of the immigrants come to Toronto. That makes no sense to me and it makes no sense to most people who think about these things in a rational way.

I invite the government to take a more balanced approach to big cities.

I know the member opposite will stand and talk about all the wonderful things the government is doing but she needs to give Canadians a sense of how the government is solving the problem of affordable housing, of congestion, of historic traffic jams. We have one of the worst cases of gridlock occur daily in the GTA. We lose $5 billion in lost productivity due to gridlock.

I would love to hear the government finally, in a real way, enter a dialogue and talk about these issues.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, if I heard the member right, in her reading of comments from her riding, one individual asked why he should have to pay for breakfast programs for children. I find this line of thinking on the part of the government most egregious. The member opposite has to vet her speech, so she has put that in intentionally. This is exactly what the Conservatives do on a day to day basis. They pick the most vulnerable and then they go after them.

I invite the member opposite to reconsider including a comment like that in Parliament. Does the member not understand that breakfast programs in schools produce better students, better adults, create a climate, a society and a culture that are more welcoming and safer? That kind of comment does not belong in the House. Would the member opposite care to comment on that?

[Public Transit, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, it is too late in the day for credit but I will say that I do not dispute any of what my hon. colleague has said. However, I do want to underline that she is talking about apples and I am talking about oranges.

I understand the investment in capital projects but I am talking about the operating costs, which is where we get into a bit of a sticky wicket. For example, when we build and spend money on a subway extension as the member described, where is the plan to afford to run the system?

This is why we need a national public transit strategy. We need to coordinate these things so that when the federal government decides to invest, along with its partners, the provinces and municipalities, in a large transit infrastructure project, all three levels of government understand how we will maintain it and run it. This is the great missing piece right now in our transit puzzle.

[Public Transit, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House tonight to speak to an issue that is very important in my riding of Davenport in Toronto and, in fact, an issue of importance right across the country, and that is public transit.

Canada is the only G7 and OECD country to not have a national transit strategy. The government likes to tell Canadians that it is a prudent fiscal manager but at every turn it seems to miss the opportunity to actually support the economy.

In terms of public transit, we are at a tipping point in terms of the investments that need to be made in public transit. The Canadian Urban Transit Association estimates that public transit faces about an $18 billion gap in infrastructure needs over the next few years. Through the great work of the member of Parliament for Trinity—Spadina, we have long called for a national transit strategy.

This national transit strategy would provide some level of predictability when it comes to transit funding. What happens now is that the municipalities, the transit authorities and the TTC, for example, can perhaps entice the federal government into investing in a capital project. Of course, when the government invests in a capital project, it gets to cut a ribbon.

What is really vital is an investment in the operating costs of transit. What we are seeing right now in municipalities right across the country is a greater share of the overall budget for municipal transit coming from the fare box. Toronto's transit budget has one of the highest percentages coming from the fare box of any municipality in North America. This is a system that really needs some federal attention.

A national public transit strategy makes sound economic sense. We know that businesses like to set up close to good public transit. We know that good public transit is good for the economy and good for the environment. It makes sense for families. It is a pro-transit mode. Increasingly, it is not just big cities, it is suburban municipalities and small towns that are in desperate need of a greater investment and greater attention to this very serious and important issue that we are dealing with right across the country.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, the other petition I am presenting today is on the so-called lawful access legislation, Bill C-30, which the government has not brought back into the House.

We do not know where it is, but the people in my riding hope that when it does come back, it will have significant changes. One of the major changes needed is to the following. In the current configuration, telecommunications companies would be compelled to maintain people's private and personal information, and law enforcement agencies would be able to access that without a warrant. That greatly disturbs and concerns members of my riding.

[Petitions, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions to present to the House today.

The first one pertains to a Canada Post retail outlet in my riding, which may or may not be closing. We do not know. The corporation has sent out mixed messages. The members of my community are very concerned because a lot of small businesses rely on the post office. A lot of residents have relied on the post office for decades.

This is a petition I want to present from my constituents who want to see that post office remain open in the riding.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for the opportunity to speak a little about the heritage file.

The government has cut about $200 million from heritage. One thing we have to remember is that when we invest in arts and culture in our country we make back our money at least twofold. Arts and culture is a major economic driver in the country, and to withstand the savage cuts that are in the budget makes absolutely no sense. It makes no sense on a nation-building front, but it also makes absolutely no sense on an economic front.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, Canadians are looking for a real debate on health care, and they do not want to read the story in the fine print of an omnibus bill to implement the budget.

That said, I think all of us on this side of the House look forward to supporting my hon. colleague from Parkdale—High Park's reasoned amendment that we should not be supporting this budget implementation bill.

[Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act, May 7th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting a year for someone from the government side to ask my opinion about its jobs policy. I can tell my hon. colleague across the way that there are people in my riding who have not one job, not two jobs, but three jobs. The reason they have three jobs is that none of them pays enough to properly afford their rent or child care or to put food on the table. They are in a mad scramble. That is not just a pretend story; that is a real story. It is happening right across the country, and the government is absolutely blind to it. That is what I think about the government's jobs record.