Adam Vaughan

[Ways and Means, June 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope and believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That the House reiterates that a strong and independent journalism is not a fossil but a living pillar of our democracy; recognizes the Canadian media needs to be supported to pass through the current crisis; and calls on the government and all parties to—

[Business of Supply, June 3rd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, the member opposite and I were colleagues in journalism before we were colleagues here in the House. In fact, he was so enraptured by my entry into politics that he actually donated to my first campaign. I do not think I have ever thanked him face to face before, but let me give him my thanks. It has been an interesting career change.

My hon. colleague described this industry as a “fossil”. The word “fossil” was used a couple of times. I would love for the party opposite to turn this around and think of another industry that is based on fossils, such as fossil fuels, an industry that the Conservatives are only too happy to subsidize. They are only too happy to pick winners and losers and only too happy to provide support and public investment.

I am curious as to why that industry is worthy of such investment, including representation from those very workers and industries, and why the print industry and journalism is not.

[Business of Supply, June 3rd, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I may share a profession with my hon. colleague across the way, but I certainly do not share his perspective.

When Unifor is identified as only representing journalists, it does not tell the story that Unifor also represents the caretaking staff, librarians, editors and camera operators. It also represents receptionists and all of the personnel who make up media organizations in this country.

To suggest that Unifor represents only journalists does not only elevate journalism in a way that is very telling from the other side, but it also completely misrepresents and under-represents, in fact I would say obscures the reality, that newspapers, radio stations and television stations across this country are so much more than just the journalism. They are the heart and soul of so many communities, and they are disappearing person by person, city by city, town by town every single day.

Anyone who has spent a lifetime in this industry knows the families who are affected, and to simply put this down to the defence of journalism so massively oversimplifies this problem that it is horrible.

The member said that he is afraid that journalists can be bought. That seems to be the implication of what he is saying. Could he perhaps tell us the journalists he thinks can be bought and list them by name?

[Poverty, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I honestly want to thank the member opposite. She has a been a strong, steady and consistent voice on the issues of social justice and, in particular, on eliminating poverty not just in her riding but in ridings right across the country. I have a great deal of respect and affection for her persistence and dedication to this.

I also have a concern that has to be spoken to, because as good as our government has been, as hard as our government has worked and as strong as the investments in child care, housing, poverty reduction and the Canada child benefit have been, we have provincial governments now in power in this country, in particular in the province I come from, that have literally declared war on children's services.

As we step forward as a federal government and do all the good things we are doing, we have a government in the province I come from that has cut teachers and classrooms, cut libraries for students, cut meal programs for children and cut the child advocate, the very person who advocates for children in the province of Ontario. It has cut program after program. The party behind this slash-and-burn campaign to wipe out services that support kids in vulnerable situations is the Conservative Party of Ontario. If Mr. Ford continues—

[Poverty, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for giving me the opportunity to talk about poverty in Canada.

This gives us a chance as a government to discuss the first-ever poverty reduction strategy in the country, and we need to do that. Poverty affects all of us, regardless of the socio-economic circumstance in which we find ourselves.

Poverty affects all of us.

It affects children, seniors, Canadians with disabilities, men, women, visible minorities and recent immigrants as well as indigenous people. The unfortunate thing about poverty is that it does not discriminate.

Our first-ever poverty reduction strategy commits to reducing real poverty by 20% by 2020 and 50% by 2030. However, these numbers are never going to be good enough until they reach 100% . Until it is entirely eliminated in this country, no government has the right, let alone the opportunity, to rest on its laurels. It has to work harder. We have to eliminate poverty in this country, in particular for the issue that was raised by the member and my colleague opposite, the poverty that confronts children. No child in this country, or on this planet in fact, should live in poverty. We are committed to finding and using every tool of government to eradicate poverty wherever we find it in this country and to work with the leadership of affected communities to make sure that, whether they are living in rural Canada, on the coasts of Canada, in the centre, in the cities or in rural communities or self-governing reserves in provinces or territories, we work together to eliminate poverty.

The opportunity for all program builds on a number of the flagship measures this government has implemented and invested in since the day we took office. We have made significant investments for children, seniors, low-wage workers and other Canadians who find themselves living in vulnerable circumstances.

For example, the Canada child benefit has helped to lift more than half a million people, including 300,000 children, out of poverty in Canada. Single mothers have seen their poverty rates decline by 30% since 2015. In the city I represent, the city of Toronto, which has one of the highest rates of child poverty in Canada, 52% of single mother-led households are now living above the poverty line as a result of investments we have made directly in their lives, in their children's lives, in the housing system, in the transit system, in the day care system and the health care system. We have made a profound difference, but we are not at zero. Until we are at zero, we have work to do and sleeves to roll up.

We have also introduced the guaranteed income supplement, which targets single seniors, primarily women. For women who did not earn enough in the workplace and were discriminated against historically in this country over generations, we have made sure that their Canada pension plan and guaranteed income supplement are boosted to help lift them out of poverty as well.

There is now the Canada workers benefit.

As well, we have made a series of other investments, including a $55 billion investment in the national housing strategy, which aims to lift 500,000 Canadians out of core housing need within the next 10 years.

We are making progress beyond, I think, even the expectations of the parties opposite. We have made substantial progress. However, as I said, the work must continue. I can assure the member opposite the work will continue, because even though we have hit our 2020 targets a year early, that does not mean we cannot get to 2030 even sooner.

[Pride Toronto, May 29th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am here to spill the tea.

Pride season in Toronto is coming up and our city's very own Brooke Lynn Hytes has made it to the final four in RuPaul's Drag Race, the reality TV show. This Canadian has done us proud in the competition, which has been the starting point for a lot of important conversations about trans rights, not just in Canada but around the world.

Conversations about the effects of homophobia, transphobia and biphobia are critical to building resiliency in these communities. Our government knows that it is our role to support them more. In fact, this week our government announced an investment of $4.3 million through the national housing strategy for the Egale Centre, Canada's first housing facility exclusively dedicated to homeless LGBTIQ2S youth.

The theme for Toronto Pride this year is “Freedom”, and it builds on having a safe place to call home because that is the foundation for all forms of freedom and free expression.

I look forward to marching this year in the Pride Parade. I look forward to seeing Brooke Lynn in Toronto and I look forward to making sure that our community is safe, housed and that the youth, in particular, are thriving.

[Accessible Canada Act, May 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that directly in my comments on the way federal legislation is drafted. Quite often we are dealing with legislation that straddles jurisdictions. When we use instructive language like “must” or “shall”, as opposed to “may” or “should”, we sometimes end up in constitutional battles with provinces, who think we are enforcing federal standards in areas of provincial responsibility, and we fight in court about what should and should not be done.

With respect to the right to housing legislation and the amendments that are coming forward, we sat in on that process with the drafters, both at the Privy Council Office and within the Department of Justice, and also with lawyers from the various housing departments. We have struggled with what the language needs to be. The prevailing view within the federal legal system is that permissive language keeps us out of court and jurisdictional squabbles and puts us in a much better operational place. Where we get more specific is in the regulations, and I think they are going to be the most important part of the bill.

ARCH is a legal aid clinic in Ontario that is now threatened with having its funds cut because the Ford government is cutting legal funding right across the board, particularly for clinics that do class action support and work. I happen to know this because my mother was part of the legal aid system in Ontario and started that clinic. I have also worked very closely with that clinic as a city councillor.

We cannot allow the legal voice of this community to be silenced, and I hope the Conservatives opposite will talk to Doug Ford—

[Accessible Canada Act, May 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, as we evolved and conducted hearings and consultations around this, the learnings were shared across cabinet and shared across caucus. It started to inform our approaches to other policies we were developing, because we knew that this legislation was coming.

What we are seeing is an all-of-government approach that has not been perhaps as surfaced or as easily identified as intentional, but I think we are seeing it there. The housing policy is a really critical one.

My father was an architect, my sister is an architect, and my daughter is in the process of becoming an architect. Of the three of them, only one has ever been taught universal design as a requirement of getting an architecture degree. The very profession that defines the space we live in does not teach accessibility as a standard requirement in any architecture school in this country, except for one, the Ontario College of Art and Design. They did it, not because they were thinking about training future architects, but because the design courses there are for everybody. As a university that has embraced a whole series of very progressive approaches to how we bring culture to life, that is one of the cultures it is bringing to life, and it is the only architecture course in the country that teaches universal design as a requirement for graduation.

Every architecture school should do that, because every building that is built in this country should accommodate every Canadian who is going to use it, especially the public ones.

[Accessible Canada Act, May 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, what we know, and we know it through this Parliament in particular, is that language is culture. Culture is expressed in language, but also human experience is defined by language.

When the member raised the point of how important it is to be able to communicate with people in their culture, in their language, as a way of not only recognizing the value of the community that speaks with this technique but also recognizing the culture of the community as it presents itself to itself, this is fundamental to the dignity of the people who identify as such.

I have no personal problem with the suggestion. However, working that into the way in which we have worked today, occupying a seat in the press gallery to make sure that those who are with us today get the services they deserve, we have not thought all of those things through, and the complexities of those thoughts require us to do much more work than simply passing legislation. We have to change the way we practice the delivery of government.

As technology arrives, as the communities gain their full place, politically in our communities, as much as they do through legislation, that is a conversation that will grow and become stronger, and we will see it become not an accommodation but rather part of the fabric of our country.

I wholeheartedly support the initiative, but the complexities of it give rise to concerns in terms of full implementation.

[Accessible Canada Act, May 28th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, this illustrates exactly the complexity of the challenges we are dealing with. It sounds like this is a provincial college that is making a decision as to what constitutes reasonable accommodation, and we do not have jurisdiction over how provincial governments provide the service. That is a provincial issue, and that is why there are many provincial accessibility acts across the country.

That being said, it also clearly illustrates that as we understand and broaden our comprehension of not just what constitutes a disability but what constitutes proper reasonable accommodation, we are going to have to have a program that is as flexible, dynamic and diverse as the community of people with disabilities. In this case, there are learnings at every opportunity for us to do better. When we talk about this process, one of the reasons we did not lock everything into legislation was that to make changes like that on the fly would require us coming back to Parliament, introducing a bill, getting it through the Senate and having it come back for royal assent.

That is why many of the things around the flexibility and fine-tuning of accommodation, the assessment of what constitutes reasonable accommodation and how we provide that accommodation systematically across the country are left to the regulations in this bill so that we have a much more fluid and dynamic way of remedying situations like the one the member referenced, which deserve to be remedied in the terms that he identified.