Adam Vaughan

[Youth, April 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for this very good idea. It is one that we are exploring through appointments to various commissions and bodies within the department I represent. In fact, we had discussions about that today.

We are looking to make sure that children's voices and the voices of youth are present when we deal with poverty or with housing or with any of the issues that affect children in this country.

The member opposite has put forth a good motion. We will be looking at that motion and coming back to the House with our position on it. I thank her for it.

[Housing, April 10th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, five years ago this week I made the decision to run for a seat in the House of Commons. At the time, I was a Toronto city councillor and the issue I campaigned on to get here was housing. I promised voters that if they sent me to Ottawa I would make sure the federal government delivered a national housing strategy, and I would make sure that strategy included more resources to fight homelessness. It would build more housing. It would protect rent subsidies and most importantly it would repair public housing.

I am proud to say that our government has delivered, and for the residents of Toronto community housing, these investments are historic. Last week, our government invested $1.3 billion to revitalize public housing in Toronto, which will protect, repair and reopen thousands of units in Toronto.

More importantly, for the families and children in my city, life will be better because, as we build affordable housing, we will also be creating jobs, making the neighbourhood energy efficient and making sure homes are more accessible.

The national housing strategy is real. It is helping real people with real investments. I am proud to be—

[Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act, April 9th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise today to speak in support of the bill, but first I would like to share my recollections about visits to the Northwest Territories with the member who has spoken several times today so eloquently about the territories and the need for self-determination, in particular for the rights of indigenous peoples to be respected not just on this issue but on a broad range of issues.

In having the honour to go from community to community, to sit down with leadership in the indigenous communities in Behchoko and Yellowknife, to talk with families that are working in the resource sector and to talk to the Government of the Northwest Territories and the municipal leadership there, one thing becomes abundantly clear. Southerners who go north should go there to listen, and if they do, what they start to understand is that the importance that is placed not just on self-determination but on self-determination that respects the modern treaties and respects indigenous communities of the north is fundamental to making sure the progress that happens up there benefits the people who will not only be subject to the changes but also should be the main beneficiaries of whatever changes occur up there.

As we look at the agreement that was put in place, what we are building on is a flawed law that was passed in the previous session, which the Supreme Court struck down. I lost track of the number of laws that the previous government passed that did not make it through the Supreme Court. I think it was eight but it might have been nine. I am sure someone on the other side can correct me if there is a former AG over there, but the reality is that not obeying the law is something that the previous government set a high watermark on.

In the delay to obeying the law and the delay to writing good legislation and in not listening to the opposition as corrections were offered, the development of natural resources in the north was set back, but more importantly, the advancement of self-determination was set back. There are lessons to be learned in terms of how we proceed in the House and how we move with the Northwest Territories, with Yukon, with Nunavut, to make sure that the aspirations and the opportunities in the north are developed in a good way and a sound way.

One of the most important parts of this is that it is consistent with UNDRIP. One of the members opposite talked about why UNDRIP is not referenced in the body of the legislation. This is being asked in several other areas of legislation. UNDRIP has not cleared the other place yet. It has not received royal assent in terms of ratification and as a result we cannot reference a piece of legislation that technically does not exist yet because our system has not yet stamped it into law.

What we heard from representatives from the territories talking about this landmark piece of legislation is that it is consistent with the spirit of UNDRIP and it brings to bear those very principles as we take a look at how resources need to be developed carefully, but more importantly how water needs to be protected and most importantly, how traditional knowledge will be used to preserve and project a stronger future in the north.

The other thing that we need to come to terms with is the value of traditional knowledge. I was talking with one of the Arctic Rangers on a trip that I made to Iqaluit and he came from a part of the country that was even farther north than the maps of Canada often show. He talked to me about what is happening to snow and ice in the far north and how as exploration parties go up there to deliver everything from housing to roads to resources and to take a look at resource development, traditional knowledge is defining what is safe and what is not. Often safety is delivered not by someone from the geographic society but from elders who have passed on their knowledge as to what constitutes safe and unsafe passageway.

The bill recognizes the value of traditional knowledge and understands the value of engaging with all forms of scientific exploration and experience. That, too, is one of the reasons it is consistent with UNDRIP and is a good piece of legislation to be supported.

The most important part of this is that it allows the north to put a stamp of self-determination on its resource projects. It can look at the impact environmentally. It can look at the impact economically. It can look at the impact socially and it can make sure that the profitability of these projects is sustained in the north in a way that delivers sustainable, permanent, social transformation to one of the areas in this country that has the largest economic challenges facing any individual who resides in this country from coast to coast to coast.

This, in and of itself, is reason enough to support the bill, because it changes the nature of the conversation and the formula of the economics in the north to make sure that the process is a strong one.

We are also seeing that leadership from the indigenous communities and from the Government of the Northwest Territories have come to a consensus on how to move forward in a good way. As legislatures, when we see consensus emerge from outside the House and arms link in common cause, our job is not so much to legislate that into reality but to create legislation that dignifies, recognizes and supports that reality.

Another thing has been achieved here as well. Although we often have to lay our legislation onto existing circumstances, in this particular piece of legislation, existing rights holders have been recognized and brought into the legislation in a way that is consistent with not only good resource development but good environmental stewardship and truth and reconciliation.

For those reasons, I will be supporting the legislation and will be forever sad that I will not get to answer questions from the opposition.

[Questions on the Order Paper, April 5th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, regarding part (a), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission according to a seven-year break-even mechanism, based on forecasts and estimates of the EI senior actuary. This rate is designed to ensure a cumulative balance of zero in the EI operating account over a seven-year time horizon.

In accordance with legislation, the EI premium rate for 2020 will be announced on or before September 14, 2019, and will take into account any new EI initiatives announced by July 22, 2019, as well as projections of key economic indicators.

Regarding part (b), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

Employment Insurance premiums are set according to a transparent mechanism that ensures that premium rates remain stable, and that premium revenues are used only to fund EI program expenditures. To calculate the seven-year break-even rate, the actuary relies on information provided by the minister of ESDC on forecast administration costs, planned spending under EI part II, the cost of new or temporary measures, and the most recent available balance of the EI operating account. The Minister of Finance provides information that includes the current available forecast values of the economic variables relevant to the preparation of actuarial forecasts and estimates for the EI account.

Regarding part (c), the Government of Canada does not set the EI premium rate. The EI premium rate is set by the Canada Employment Insurance Commission.

[Child Care, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we agree, and that is why we invested $7.5 billion in early child care and learning, which the province of Quebec is now using to supplement its day care program. That is the kind of federal-provincial partnership that works, but it requires federal dollars, not an argument to the provinces that they need to spend more.

We can take a look at other things. An issue was raised regarding household debt. We are looking at issues regarding affordable home ownership.

Let us contrast the two parties' approaches. The NDP promises to send a cheque for $750 to people who can afford million-dollar mortgages, believing that is going to solve the housing crisis. It is going to spend $125 million to send cheques for $750 to people who can afford to buy homes in Vancouver for $1.6 million and carry a mortgage of $1.2 million. That does not create equity and that is not social justice. That simply subsidizes people buying a fancy suit or a fancy bicycle to put in the back of their BMWs as they ride around to climate change protests.

The reality is that the Liberal program actually delivers real dollars to help subsidize mortgages and the down payment for mortgages for struggling Canadians, such as lower-income Canadians, so they can actually purchase real estate and get into the housing market. These are real dollars for real people, but they are also targeted toward lower-income Canadians.

If we want to solve these problem, we cannot do it with slogans. We have to do it with real investments. This government is proud to have made the investments to reduce child poverty and poverty in general in the country. About 900,000 Canadians—

[Child Care, April 3rd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for her contribution. She raises the most important issues in this country on a regular basis. The House of Commons is better for discussing those issues, because those are the issues that are confronting Canadians day to day and that actually matter, and that is exactly where our government is focused.

I have heard the member speak on this issue since I was first elected in a by-election in 2014. As I listened to her speak, I thought I may have heard the same speech when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister. In fact, when Stephen Harper was the Prime Minister, most of the issues she is talking about were never, ever addressed.

In fact, the day care accord, which was defeated by both the NDP and the Conservative government in the House, and then later in the election, was never picked up, developed or really evolved with Stephen Harper. Housing dollars were cut on a year-after-year basis by the former government. In terms of the child benefit, a position the NDP supported, it was taxed and that put, in particular, single moms in very precarious positions, especially as they tried to move from poverty to self-sufficiency through the middle class by getting good, strong jobs.

Our government's record on children stands in stark contrast to the previous government. The investments we have made also stand in stark contrast to the NDP platform from the previous election. When NDP members talk about day care, their day care platform required the provincial governments to fund virtually all of their day care plan. As a result, it would have probably not even caught the attention of any of the provincial ministries, because many of the provinces in this country steadfastly oppose national standards being imposed upon them if federal dollars are not at the table investing.

How do we know that? We signed a $7.5 billion, 10-year agreement with the provinces and territories and extra agreements for indigenous-led, indigenous-designed and indigenous-delivered day care programs for the first time ever in the history of the country. That $7.5 billion was not in this year's budget, although the dollars are being spent this year, because it was in the budget two years ago. Those dollars are now being invested right across the country.

We also substantially increased the Canada child benefit, made it tax free and indexed it. As a result of that, close to 800,000 Canadians have been lifted out of poverty, largely as a result of that measure, and almost half of them are children. In the city I represent, female-led households have seen poverty reduced by 52% in the last four years, directly as a result of the work of this government.

We added to that the $50 billion we have now set aside for housing over the next 10 years, including substantial dollars that were announced just this week to fight homelessness in every single community across the country, but particularly in designated communities. We have added to that the Canada housing benefit, which is coming online next year. We have added to that by taking steps to deal with issues that confront families in a host of other areas, including supporting seniors, making EI more flexible and putting all of these support programs in place.

What we are seeing is not just the rebuilding of a social safety net. We are seeing the construction of a trampoline, a social safety net that actually bounces people back up into security.

Is our work done? No, it is absolutely not done. As we move towards hitting our poverty targets, we know that we have more targets to set and more targets to meet. We will not rest until those programs are strengthened and poverty is reduced, in particular, for children and particularly for children in households led by women. However, that involves our having to sit down with the provinces and convince people that when federal dollars arrive, provincial dollars do not go out the back door.

When we stepped up on infrastructure, in Alberta in particular, on transit, we put investments on the table. In fact, we delivered new infrastructure dollars for transit, which is a very important tool for fighting poverty. What happened? The provincial government in that province cut provincial contributions, leaving the federal government to pay the freight as it related to public transit in that province.

We need good, strong partners. When we get them, we see results. We are seeing it on housing in British Columbia right now. We are seeing it on a host of other issues.

Child poverty rates are dropping to the lowest levels we have seen in this country in a generation. Our work is not done and we continue of focus on working with provinces, territories and all partners, including municipalities, to solve this terrible problem that confronts Canada.

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address a question of privilege that was raised earlier in the House.

I wish to table a statement that was made by the member for Whitby. There have been conversations with my good friend and I have been granted permission to table this statement. Her statement to the member of Perth—Wellington was, “What in your right mind made you decide that you were allowed to speak for me? Everything in this ridiculous point of order is false and you have no right to speak on my behalf. I am perfectly capable. Quit grandstanding and please correct this.”

I would like to thank the member for Whitby, who is a very good friend of mine. I thank her for sitting in the House late into the night as we went through the marathon votes, voting with the government each and every step of the way. I respect her decision to sit as an independent. I know why she did that. It is for her to say why she did that, and for the members opposite to read body language as a way of reading fact into the record has now quite clearly been dismissed by the member for Whitby. I wish they would respect her words, rather than put words in her mouth.

[Committees of the House, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member opposite's statement just now and as well listened to his questions in question period. I just want to clear this up for my own understanding.

Is the article on the interview with the head of SNC-Lavalin that the member keeps referring to the article published on March 19, headlined “SNC Chief Says Job Losses Possible Amid Canadian Scandal”? Is that the same article that says that while he never threatened to move the company, and spoke to the Prime Minister about it, what he did say in it was this:

“This is where we want to be, in terms of our base.” But the chief executive also signalled the company could pivot its focus elsewhere.

Is that the same article that says that job losses are in fact possible, that there used to be 21,000 jobs in Quebec and Canada in 2012 but that since then they have been reduced to 9,000, and more job losses are possible as a result of the ongoing situation?

Is that the article he keeps quoting as saying that the head of SNC-Lavalin never threatened job losses, although he does, in the title of the article and in the body of the text, and that he never talked about moving the headquarters, although he does reference the board meeting that happened in December 2018? Is that the article the member keeps referencing, or is there another article where he contradicts himself?

[Child Care, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, the funniest thing about the NDP members is that when we put something in the budget, they complain that it is long-term, and when we do not put something in the budget because we did it the previous year, they ignore that we did it last year.

The reality is that $7.5 billion has been invested in child care agreements. These agreements are with provinces and territories, but they also have specific agreements with indigenous-led organizations through the NIOs.

Our $7.5 billion over the next 10 years is now in the system and delivering child care spaces in B.C., Ontario and right across the country from coast to coast to coast. We are proud of our investments.

We realize that more needs to be done. That is why we are also focused on lifting women out of poverty. The numbers on that are even better. If members want to ask me a question about that, I would be happy to answer.

[Employment Insurance, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the work we have done on EI reform in this government, which includes addressing the issue of seasonal workers in industries that are affected by the surges and the loss of work due to the seasonal nature of the employment. We have also made it easier to work while on benefits, and in fact, in this year's budget, we also added additional measures to make sure that people who are transitioning between jobs, people who are working while on claims, can get the support they need to participate in the economy in the way they want to in the communities where they live.

Our government continues to reform EI and continues to be focused on making sure that vulnerable Canadians not only get the support from EI but that EI is there to make sure they get to a better future. That is why we are doing the job we are doing.