Adam Vaughan

[Business of Supply, January 31st, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for the opportunity to speak about housing and once again pay my respect to the member opposite who has been a tireless advocate for better and stronger housing policies and has sustained the debate in the House. For that I give her thanks, because for all of us who are fighting to create the strongest national housing program possible, we need the good ideas of members on the sides opposite as well as the voices of people, as the member has said, who have come through that lived experience.

The question I have for the member opposite is with respect to the details of the NDP program and it is a question that really needs to be answered.

I recognize that the NDP is calling for 500,000 housing units, half of which are to come after five years, which is not after one election but after two elections. CMHC and housing advocates and housing suppliers across the country pegged the cost of providing a house at 80% of market value at $350,000 on average across the country. Of course it is much higher in Vancouver and Toronto where land values drive a different equation. Based on the simple math that the NDP has produced, that means its housing program would cost $175 billion, half of which would have to be spent this year. I am curious as to where her party is going to find that money.

Second, the NDP has said it is going to subsidize every Canadian in core housing need, which that member has said is 1.7 million people. What is that dollar figure and where is her party going to find those dollars this year?

[Child Care, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that the federal government has signed a bilateral agreement. The $7.5 billion that we have invested in child care is invested into the provincial treasury. Those are the dollars that are supporting the good work the member just spoke about. That work would not be possible without a federal investment. That federal investment may not constitute the national strategy that was once in place before the NDP defeated it, but it is a national program to support provinces and territories and first nations governments in delivering child care.

Beyond that, additional supports for young people and young families in this country continue to be built by this government to make sure that all families, all women and all children get the support they can get from the federal government. This government is committed to making this happen, and we are proud to be delivering those resources to provinces to see those programs that she just mentioned realized in real people's lives in real ways as this government moves forward.

Before I finish, as this is probably the last time I will be speaking in this House, I want to thank the Speaker and the members of the opposition as well. It has been an honour to speak in this particular House, with its particular history. I am also honoured that my final presentation enabled me to talk about both children and families in this country, as well as about housing and the need for a strong national housing program.

It is why I got elected to Parliament. I do not know if this is the last time I will be present in this chamber, but 10 years is a while, so to be able conclude before we close it for a while by speaking about those two issues that are so close to my heart is a great honour. I thank all of my riding for sending me here and giving me that opportunity.

[Child Care, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East states that it is essential for working mothers to have access to high-quality, accessible and affordable child care services. Families need this, and our government completely agrees with her. The affordability and quality of child care services influence parents' participation in the labour market and child development.

I am sure that my colleague is fully aware of the investments we are making in early learning and child care services, but if she needs to be reminded I will reiterate them for her.

We intend to create up to 40,000 new subsidized child care spaces across the country by March 2020 and to assist low- and modest-income families with the rising cost of educating their children. To do this, we entered into bilateral agreements with the provinces and territories following the multilateral early learning and child care framework. This framework sets the foundation for governments to work toward a shared long-term vision where all children benefit from quality early-learning and child care services. The agreements contain action plans and identify priority areas for investments for each province and territory.

My colleague will be pleased to learn that these action plans are paying off and are helping parents to find a balance between work and family.

For example, in British Columbia a greater number of young parents can now obtain free child care services while they complete their studies. In addition, the province is using the funding received through the Canada-British Columbia bilateral agreement to expand its programs throughout the province.

One such example is the aboriginal head start program, which provides prevention, tightening of family bonds, and early learning and child care services adapted to indigenous cultures. In Alberta, it is military families who benefit. Edmonton and Cold Lake now have more affordable child care options. They have access to $25 child care spaces on two Canadian Forces bases. These are just some of the examples that provide concrete evidence of measures that we are taking in collaboration with the provinces and territories to give parents access to affordable, flexible and high-quality child care services.

Furthermore, on September 17, the indigenous early learning and child care framework was released in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and the Métis National Council. This framework reflects the unique cultures, aspirations and needs of first nations, Inuit and Métis children and families across Canada.

The investments we are making are part of our commitment to help the middle class and those who are working hard to join it. They include $7.5 billion over 10 years, bilateral agreements signed and secured with the provinces and territories, and on top of that the investments in the Inuit, Métis and first nations communities.

We are not done yet. We also have just included in the fall financial update the notion of social innovation and the role that social innovation and housing need to play together. We have made eligible through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation the blending of these programs so that new public housing can also have new public day care spaces built on site to accommodate the complex needs of lower-income Canadians.

This government is committed to child care, committed to children and committed to families. We have not just spoken about it in this House; we have invested those dollars now and into the future to benefit all Canadians right across Canada from coast to coast to coast.

[Housing, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the need for housing now. It is why I left city council in Toronto and ran for a seat in Parliament. It was to get the federal government back into a leadership position on the issue of housing.

The $40 billion program over the next 10 years is the re-profiling of the national housing strategy from a federal perspective, changing definitions, changing accessibility, funding cities directly. We have provinces that do not want to participate in a housing program, but it would be a mistake to suggest that spending on housing is contained within that $40 billion program. The reality is that the day we took office, we started improving definitions and spending requirements to ensure things like co-ops had their operating units renewed.

The investments we made in the first budget over the first three years of our government have injected an additional $5.6 billion into the housing sector. Those dollars are the dollars that are being spent now, opening housing projects right across the country. On top of that, there is an indigenous housing program, which has had significant increases in expenditures and there is more on the way.

We did not start a $40 billion program last year with the budget announcement and the $40 billion over the next 10 years is not new money that has not been spent yet. That money is being spent now and those dollars will be invested over the next 10 years. We are going to build a strong housing system to ensure we never have to deal with the tragedies that are spoken to sometimes from across the way.

[Housing, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Saskatoon West not just for her question but also for her strong voice on this issue. She is one of the clearest and loudest members of Parliament when it comes to the issue of housing. I am glad to share time not just speaking about this issue, but fighting for better housing for all Canadians.

The lack of affordable housing has a tragic impact on vulnerable people, in particular women and children fleeing violence. That is why our government's top concern since taking office has been to focus on this.

When it comes to housing, women are the first to lose housing, the last to get housing and the hardest to house if there are not strong policies in place. When we came to office, those policies simply were not in place.

The member for Saskatoon West knows that one of the very first actions our government took was to boost federal investments in housing, starting with our first budget in 2016. Since then, we have invested close to $90 million over two years specifically to help survivors of domestic violence. More than 5,800 shelter spaces have been renovated or created with those funds. This includes commitments like the one made last March with respect to a shelter in Rocky Mountain House, Alberta. There, the governments of Canada and Alberta announced $1.9 million in funding to increase capacity of that very shelter. This funding is part of a $6 million federal commitment to women's facilities across Alberta. It is leading to more construction and renovation of off-reserve shelters and transitional housing for families that are fleeing family violence.

The member for Saskatoon West may also be aware of another example of our support for shelter spaces. It was announced last spring in her home province. On that occasion, the Government of Canada, the Province of Saskatchewan and the Meadow Lake Tribal Council announced work to rebuild the Waskoosis Safe Shelter in Meadow Lake. The governments of Canada and Saskatchewan are jointly contributing $1.2 million to this very important project.

However, we know there is much more work to be done and our government is ready to lead the way. In November 2017, we announced Canada's first-ever national housing strategy. This is a 10-year, $40 billion plan to give Canadians a safe, affordable place to call home. Our plan focuses first and foremost on the most vulnerable populations, including, women and children fleeing family violence.

One of the signature pillars of the strategy is the $13.2 billion national housing co-investment fund, money that is already being spent in communities right across the country. The fund will create at least 4,000 safe, affordable spaces for survivors of family violence, working together with private and non-profit developers, pooling their collective resources, combined with the federal, provincial and municipal governments.

Low-income families will also be able to access the strategy's Canada housing benefit beginning in 2020. This will deliver an average of $2,500 per year in rent support directly to those struggling with housing the most.

Our government is fully committed to helping support women and children at an absolutely critical time. In all corners of the country, we are working with communities to give people the safety and stability to rebuild their lives.

I will add that one of the fundamental principles of the co-investment fund is to specifically set aside dollars for second-stage housing. We know, having talked to women's organizations and housing providers across the country, that when we build second-stage housing, by default we automatically create space in shelters. This program is building a full continuum of housing to support women in need, in particular women escaping domestic violence.

Changing the definition of what constitutes homelessness and chronic homelessness is part of the way our government is supporting and making sure that women have a safe, affordable place to call home. That is a fundamental, core principle of the national housing strategy and is shown in the money being spent in Canada right now to support women as we speak.

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I just heard an astonishing observation from the member opposite about the requirement to speak for 10 minutes and if a member did not, somehow he or she would get admonished by the leadership in the House.

Let me assure the member opposite that a member does not have to speak for 10 minutes. A member is allowed to speak for 10 minutes, but if the member runs out of things to say, he or she does not have to pick up a paper and start searching for things to say just because the House leader told the member to speak for 10 minutes so the debate would not collapse. The member opposite could now attempt to use the time she has to answer my question.

I listened to the white supremacists on Parliament Hill this weekend and I listened to her comments. I am trying to let her tell me what the difference is between the two. Both parties are worried about some global conspiracy theory. I am going to make her a tinfoil hat for Christmas. She can wear it proudly.

I am not sure where this conspiracy theory is coming from and I certainly do not like the inference that somehow by making sure that migration and immigration is done in an orderly way, it is somehow undermining the values of the country. The country was built on immigration and on good immigration policy. The idea that there is a global conspiracy theory afoot to try to make us absorb immigrants who we do not want is absolutely offensive to those of us who were raised by immigrants, because our parents were immigrants.

[Customs Act, December 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, nothing quite like listening to a speech in the House of Commons about efficiency that takes 20 minutes to agree with the government. One would think efficiency would just be to say that she agrees with the bill and sit down. Instead, what we were treated to was a very long lecture, one which moved into some pretty disturbing space.

The UN pact on migration is not binding on this country. We know that. Anyone who has ever dealt with the UN or with migration issues around the UN knows that. However, I was here on the weekend, and I saw the demonstration by the white supremacists on the front lawn of Parliament Hill as they walked down past the Justice Building shouting their horrific slogans.

When I hear white supremacists chanting the very same slogans members opposite speak with soft voices in this House, what is the difference between the position the white supremacists took on the UN migration pact and the position the party opposite is taking? It has raised this issue. It has nothing to do with Bill C-21, but members opposite keep coming back to it speech after speech. This notion that there is some globalist conspiracy to overrule Canada's sovereignty on immigration is exactly what the white supremacists were saying on the lawns of Parliament this week. What is the difference between that and what the Conservatives are saying here today? Quite frankly, it is a little scary.

[Expungement of Certain Cannabis-related Convictions Act, December 7th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I agree with virtually every point the member opposite has made, in particular, the impact on racialized youth and on the black and indigenous communities of this country. They have been policed in a different way and incarceration records prove it, without a shadow of a doubt.

I am considering supporting this private member's motion because this is a significant issue in many of the communities I represent, but the issue is that not every one of the charges is equal. They have definitely been policed differently, convicted differently and managed by the courts differently, but in some cases, the charges are part of a larger criminal process and criminal set of charges, where expunging the record could have an impact on sentencing and public safety.

I would ask the member opposite to consider that if we start pulling out some of the convictions on very serious charges, possession charges being incidental, we may shorten criminal sentences and certain sentencing provisions and that may create complications around public safety. How would they handle that?

[Poverty Reduction Act, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I also note that one of the taxes the Netherlands has is a carbon tax, but we will put that off to another day and another debate. The Netherlands too has priced pollution and also is eliminating cars in the downtown core by 2030. The Netherlands also has an incredibly aggressive housing program.

I wonder if the member opposite could reflect on the fact that we have spent $5.6 billion so far and we have 14,000 units of housing approved, under construction or built. Particularly when it comes to seniors, 12,000 of the 60,000 units that will be built under the national housing strategy are dedicated for seniors, including 20% of the units being universally accessible for people to age in place and age comfortably, if they have disabilities now but also into the future. I wonder if the member could also reflect on whether those programs are things that the member opposite supports and sees as important ways to reduce poverty in this country.

[Poverty Reduction Act, November 30th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her comprehensive list of ideas and initiatives that she clearly supports and has been a long-time advocate for. They are measures that our government is considering, in particular around EI reform and around making sure we do more than just the Canada child benefit—for example, the $7.5 billion investments in early learning and child care, which are locked in now for the next 10 years in bilaterals with the various provinces.

As well, the investments with indigenous governments and an indigenous-led child care program are part of those long-term investments that go well beyond the Canada child benefit, which has already lifted 300,000 children out of poverty.

I have a question for the member opposite, because I have raised this issue a dozen times in the House now, and I still have not had an explanation. On page 66 of their platform, when considering the housing crisis in this country—which the party opposite spoke about prior to the last election, so it could not have been absent from their imagination as they put together a platform—in 2017, 2018 and 2019, their investments into affordable housing were zero, zero and zero. Also their spending, their attack, on homelessness—which we have doubled to $220 million by increasing it by $100 million—was only going to be $10 million a year.

Finally, the only commitment they made to the indigenous housing program was $25 million, which would have been delivered this year, and that was for all the water plants, all the schools, all the hospitals, all the community centres and all the housing, including repairs to the housing, which she spoke of as being overcrowded.

Do they regret the platform they put in front of Canadians the last time? Will they promise to do better in the next election?