Peggy Nash

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, once again, unfortunately, my question was not answered. My question was what the 2013 budget announced on the reduction in infrastructure spending for the next five years. The answer was a $5.8-billion cut over the next five years compared with the 2012-13 funding levels.

Yes, they announced funding for the future, way down the road, when they will no longer be the government, but for now, they actually announced a cut.

Let me ask another question. Does the minister know the cost of gridlock in the city of Toronto, the city he is also the minister for?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the answer also had nothing to do with the question. My question was whether he knows how much the infrastructure deficit is. Either he does not know or he does not care to say. Let me help him out. The answer is at least $170 billion, which is a pretty big number. I think even he would agree.

Let me ask the minister this: What reduction in infrastructure plan funding did budget 2013 announce for the subsequent five years?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, that is simply ridiculous and illogical. It is simply not the case. I would love to dig down into these numbers, but I have such limited time that I need to move on to another topic. However, it is ridiculous to say that most of the jobs being created are high wage, permanent, long-term jobs. It is simply not the case.

Let me turn to the issue of infrastructure. Downloading by Liberal and Conservative governments has led our cities to the point of crisis. Does the minister know the current infrastructure deficit?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, the number is actually 40%. Temporary jobs have increased by 40% over about the last 20 years. It is less than that. It is 15 years.

Does the minister really think that increasingly shifting to part-time and precarious work is an acceptable replacement for full-time jobs?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, we can duel over unemployment numbers. I can tell you that unemployment is up in the city of Toronto, and you did not answer my question. My question is this: do you know by how much temporary jobs have increased in Toronto since 1997?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, even Bay Street does not seem to be helping, because unemployment is increasing in the city of Toronto.

Does the minister know by how much temporary jobs have increased since the end of the 1990s in the Toronto census metropolitan area, that is, the Toronto area? Does he know by how much temporary jobs have increased, say since 1997, before the recession?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, there are 11,000 families now without jobs.

Does the minister, who is also the minister for the GTA, know that the City of Toronto reported that unemployment increased to 9.2% last month? Does the minister consider this to be acceptable in Canada's largest city?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

The number he is looking for, Mr. Chair, is 11,400 jobs. That is how many jobs were lost in Ontario last year. That is some record.

Will the minister admit that this is a troubling indication of a stalled and even slipping recovery in his home province? Will he at least admit that?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, I would assume that the government is going to conduct a gender analysis of a program it is thinking of introducing, one that apparently does not benefit 84% of Canadians, so we look forward to that.

Does the minister know how many jobs have been lost or how much unemployment has increased in Ontario in the last year? Let me just clarify. Does the minister know how much unemployment has increased in Ontario in the last year? How many jobs have we lost?

[Business of Supply, May 14th, 2014]

Mr. Chair, if it helps, the government has said that departments and agencies are required to include gender-based analysis in the development of new spending measures, so hopefully, that is available publicly.

In April 2011, the government proposed an income-splitting program at an estimated cost of $3 billion. Does the minister believe that this is the best use of federal taxpayer dollars, since income splitting would benefit, at most, 16% of Canadians, and they would be the richest 16% of Canadians, while costing 100% of Canadians in lost services? Second, has the minister conducted a gender analysis of this program?