Ted Hsu

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the expiration of the agreements will impact both co-operatives and cities.

There is an impact on the city of Kingston, which is mandated to operate roughly 2,000 units of affordable housing. Of course it is not going to cut those units as these operating agreements and mortgage subsidies expire. Therefore, what does it have to do? It has to raise property taxes.

The Conservatives' non-action is essentially raising the property taxes of people in Kingston and the Islands. That is what happens when the Conservative government decides to ignore affordable housing.

Does my colleague agree that we should consider the impact on cities and property-tax payers as well as on housing co-operatives?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue in the same line of debate regarding the government's announcement for the build Canada fund. It is back-loaded, so for the first few years there is not much money to spend on much-needed infrastructure.

However, I have another concern, which is that the government recently announced, with respect to the build Canada fund, that there would be no framework agreement with the provinces. The problem that results is that separate arrangements between provincial and federal governments will now have to be made for each project, because costs for a lot of large infrastructure projects are shared between the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.

I am thinking in particular of something that causes congestion in my riding of Kingston and the Islands, which is the need for a crossing over the main rail line. I wonder if the member could address that question. I know it is a bit technical, but could he say whether he has heard any assurances about the problems that might be caused by the lack of a framework agreement between the federal and provincial governments?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, first, as this is a chamber of debate, I would like to respond to a request made by the last two speakers from the Conservative Party, who asked opposition members to vote for the budget. The reason the Liberals are not voting for the budget is that we know that we could produce a much better budget, and we would be betraying what we believe in if we did that.

My question is about the James Clerk Maxwell Telescope. The member from the Kitchener-Waterloo area may know about this telescope. It is a telescope Canadians have worked on for many years. It is a world-class instrument. Canada has put millions of dollars into the telescope. It needs roughly only $700,000 a year to continue its operation until about 2019, when a new telescope will take over.

Given that the government has announced the Canada first research excellence fund, which, by the way, this telescope is not eligible for, would my hon. colleague from the Kitchener area join me in asking the government to find a way to fund Canadian astronomers using this telescope for the next few years?

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the Conservatives always quote job statistics from the bottom of the recession instead of when they took power in 2006. It makes the numbers look better.

I am encouraged by my hon. colleague mentioning one of the Red Seal trades: agricultural equipment technician. It is very important to have people who can fill the jobs that involve needed skills. However, I would remind the member that it was his government, when it closed the prison farms, that said there were no jobs on farms. That was the justification that the Conservatives gave for not having inmates work hard and regularly, work on time, and work up to standards on farms while they were in minimum security institutions.

At that time the Conservatives said there were not any jobs on farms, and now my hon. colleague talks, correctly, I would say, about the importance of agricultural equipment technicians when he talks about the new apprentice loan program. I wonder if he might like to correct the government's statement from previous years.

[The Budget, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question about the what the budget did not do for affordable housing, which is an important issue in my riding, Kingston and the Islands.

Mortgage subsidies and operating agreements will expire in the coming years, yet the budget offers nothing to replace them. Obviously, the City of Kingston does not want to reduce the number of affordable housing units. By doing nothing, the Conservatives are essentially making cuts. In fact, it is the Conservatives who are calling for a property tax hike in the City of Kingston. I would like my hon. colleague to comment on that.

[Privilege, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for giving me the time to speak to this question of privilege.

One good thing about this is that the member for Mississauga—Streetsville did stand up in the House and say that he did not tell the truth.

Whatever you do, Mr. Speaker, I hope you make sure you do not create a moral hazard. I hope you encourage people to correct the record when they do not tell the truth in the House. That would be a good thing.

I remember in the last session of this Parliament when I spoke on a related point, some research results were corrected but the ministers did not make it clear that the results had been corrected and kept using the old results. There was no way to go back and correct Hansard. There was no way to make it clear that something that had been said in the House was not true. I hope that whatever remedy is found for this would allow for Hansard to be corrected so that we would not have to check Hansard all the time to make sure that every single statement in it is actually true.

When the member stood up and said his statement was not true, he did not acknowledge that he has hurt the reputation of the House, and that is something that we need to be able to do our work. It is something that Canada needs in order to attract good Canadians to serve in the House. We have to be able to honestly call each other “honourable”, and I do not know if we can do that. It is embarrassing when I talk to friends and they ask me what I am doing this for, what am I doing with these politicians. There is a bit of cynicism out there. Being able to honestly call each other “honourable members” is important to the country and to the functioning of the House, and it gives Canadians confidence in what we do. That is important for good government.

I would call on you, Mr. Speaker, to take these things into account. I do not know how you will rule on this question of privilege, but there is an important idea here, which is that we have to rely on what each of us says in the House. We need to have confidence that we are trying our best to tell each other the truth, to tell each other the facts and the evidence. We should not make up stuff to sound good and to make a good video to send out to our voters.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from voters in my constituency who are calling on the Government of Canada to consult Canadians about a new electoral system and who would like to support the introduction of a suitable form of proportional representation following these public consultations.

[Petitions, February 25th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, my constituents bring me many different petitions, and I am happy to present them all in the House.

Today, I have two petitions. The first one draws the attention of the House of Commons to poverty in Canada and calls on the House of Commons to pass Bill C-233, an act to eliminate poverty in Canada.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to contest the assertion of my hon. colleague that this bill is really a number of technical amendments. My view is that it is not technical amendments. It is actually tilting the playing field a little. The direction I am concerned it is tilting the playing field is to people with money.

Currently people can donate only $1,200 to political parties. That is being increased to $1,500. Not that many people can donate $1,200, so the people who have means will be able to donate more and have more influence in the political process. I do not think that would be thought a technical amendment if we went across the country and asked people how many can actually donate that much and how many of them really want people who have that much extra money to have even more influence over the federal government.

[Business of Supply, February 24th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, if a committee went on the road to speak to Canadians about this bill, which affects how we choose our federal government, one question I would ask people, which we could not do in committee here on the Hill, is to put up their hand if they could donate $1,200 to an election candidate, which is the maximum amount. I bet very few hands would go up because very few people could afford to donate that much. Then I would ask them why we should give those people who already donate the maximum even more influence in the political process when most people cannot afford that. That is the sort of thing we could do by going across the country.

I would ask my colleague to comment on that.