Adam Vaughan

[Airbnb in Spadina—Fort York, February 5th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the riding that I represent is geographically small enough that when shootings happen, the sirens are literally heard in every corner of Spadina—Fort York. Last Friday, when gunfire broke out on the 32nd floor of a CityPlace condominium, all of downtown was rattled, rattled but not surprised.

Too many guns are going off in Toronto, too many people are dying and too many people are terrified in the aftermath. Residents are demanding stronger gun control, investments to create more resilient communities and supports to help young people make better choices.

I support these goals and I will fight for them in this Parliament, but condo residents are asking for something else. Too many of these shootings are tied to short-term rentals. People in my riding are demanding that Airbnb and other sharing platforms obey city bylaws. Rules are in place to clamp down on multiple listings and units being rented out for parties.

The city has moved to protect those of us who live in condominiums. It is time for Airbnb to obey the law and drop their lawsuit.

[Points of Order, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for whatever I did during question period to anger the opposite side.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, after they called us the “crew over there”, I referred to members on the side opposite as “the gang over there.” I apologize for using that word and I withdraw it.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I admit that I stooped to their level, and I apologize.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague talk about his concerns with the Prime Minister after the President of the United States clearly said that renegotiating NAFTA was his number one priority and that he was going to do it, come hell or high water.

The Prime Minister said that he was willing to negotiate and to meet with the President on those terms. Was there a way the Conservatives could have avoided President Trump renegotiating? There seemed to be a suggestion in the hon. member's presentation that the Liberal government should have refused to talk to President Trump, should have refused to renegotiate and should have refused to meet the President on his terms. Quite clearly this was the President's number one priority heading into office. Now it appears to be the number one claim the President makes to his legacy.

How were the Conservatives going to avoid dealing with President Trump if he insisted on ripping up the old agreement?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, Langley is a beautiful city, and I will read a headline from its wonderful news service, the Langley Advance Times, from October 16, 2016, on the result of our infrastructure program. The headline is very clear about exactly where dollars have been lent: “Langley City among first B.C. municipalities to benefit from federal infrastructure grant.” In fact, it was the largest grant in B.C. in 15 years. The difference between B.C. and Alberta is that B.C. has a provincial government that wants to partner with municipalities and the federal government to deliver real results. In Alberta the provincial government wants to cut, cut.

Could the member opposite explain to me the Conservative proposition that we can build SkyTrains, highways or water sewage plants with tax cuts? I was a municipal councillor for 10 years and never saw a single piece of infrastructure built with a tax cut. It is built with investment.

I know I am not going to get thanks for the investment in Langley, although we heard that from the previous MP, but I will say that the largest investment ever made in Langley by a federal infrastructure program was made by this government under this program.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to show the member the money, but I would need her to explain why the provincial government in Alberta just cut the Calgary transit budget by 86%.

The green line project, which we approved and were prepared to spend money on, has suddenly disappeared as a project because of a cut from $550 million by the province to $75 million. Without the provincial contribution, matching federal dollars will not flow.

I could also show the member opposite a $200-million investment that the previous government made before Kenney came to office. He has cut $200 million, and now the LRTs will not be rebuilt. Federal dollars were going to match the provincial dollars there, but because Kenney has spent the infrastructure budget, now the federal dollars will not flow.

The hard part about our infrastructure program is that we do not spend the money unless there is a real project. We do not send money to Alberta hoping that it may someday decide to build transit projects. When they start to be constructed, the federal government will cash out the receipts as they are submitted. That is part of the reason why the money remains in Ottawa until such time as a city spends it.

Fundamentally, if the Conservatives in Alberta are worried about unemployment and worried about construction trade workers getting jobs, they destroyed the green line project by cutting 86% of the provincial funding, which eliminated the federal contribution to a project we had already approved and were ready to build. It is pretty hard to show the Conservatives the money because they do not want to spend it.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, one of the challenges we had in the first term was that when we put infrastructure dollars on the table, when we put infrastructure dollars at the front door of provincial parliaments, out the back door provincial cuts undermined the program. In particular, in Alberta, we had a significant problem with this, where we did not bind the government into spending levels with conditions. What we had was a government that simply used federal money to fund provincial programs and did not add to the mix. We are trying to increase infrastructure spending, not simply change who is funding it.

If the Auditor General comes back with a report saying that we have to bind provincial spending levels in order to have impact, would the member not agree that is a reasonable request, without setting priorities from the province of Quebec, to ensure we do not lose provincial dollars while we put federal dollars on the table so municipalities get the benefit of both programs instead of just one or the other?

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I will give the new member a break on this, and perhaps he could talk to one of the long-serving members in his caucus, because the infrastructure program and the accords we signed with the provinces were effectively rolled over from the Harper years, which were effectively rolled over from the Chrétien-Martin years, when the one-third, one-third, one-third formula was put in place. The one difference we made was that we give cities much more priority in setting the projects than provinces.

However, on the stretch of highway that the member referred to, if the provincial government nominates a city's request, we do not stand in the way of funding it. Therefore, the question he was asking would be better put in the B.C. legislature or perhaps in the city council chambers where his constituents will find their representation locally.

We do not set the priorities. We do not choose from the list. We do not edit the list. Cities nominate, provincial governments agree and we fund. When the provincial governments do not participate, the money stays in Ottawa, and that is not our fault, that is the provincial government's fault.

The good news in B.C. is that the Government of B.C. is actually one of the more aggressive provinces in spending infrastructure dollars, especially on climate change adaptation. I suggest the member write the minister a letter.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, one of the limits placed upon the Office of the Auditor General is that it cannot investigate jurisdictions outside the mandate of Parliament. In other words, provincial, indigenous and municipal governments are not part of the scope of work that the Auditor General could do.

In Manitoba, close to 90% of the money has not been opened up for applications from municipalities. We just need to talk to a Manitoba mayor to find out very quickly where the frustration lies. It is not in our program; it is the provincial governments that somehow do not want to spend money on infrastructure, even though even MPs in this chamber are asking for those dollars to be spent.

How is the Auditor General going to uncork the challenges we are having in provincial capitals where Conservative premiers are refusing to participate with the infrastructure program? Ontario is just not opening up the avenues for applications, and mayors are screaming and begging Conservatives to invest in their communities. How do we get the Auditor General to investigate the behaviour of provincial premiers who seem pretty stubborn and pretty determined not to build a good country?